OK...Here goes......

What is driving mobman:

I don't believe mobman is really an anarchist or conspiracy theorist at heart.   Rather, he is using theories and his posts as tools to help justify his life style.  And that life style, which he has adopted by neglect, is one of unprincipled, amoral, and unreliable behavior.

I believe that he uses the anarchy bit as his first tool to try to gain acceptance for his attempt to live without normal societal rules.  And he uses the conspiracy theories as secondary tools in hopes of making the anarchy justifiable.  (If we can't trust government, business, society, etc. then just living like barn yard animals is somewhat the fall-back.)

But in the end, it all comes down to his desire to live by whim and by "making it up as he goes along".

Of course, the problem with this is it leaves a real mess for the rest of us to clean up doesn't it.

President Bush Expanded And Enforced Trade Agreements To Open New Markets For American Products
The President Has Enacted New Free Trade Agreements That Are Benefitting American Farmers, Workers, And Small Business Owners

The President leveled the playing field for American workers by increasing the number of countries partnered with the U.S. on free trade agreements (FTAs) from three to 16.  One additional agreement has been approved by Congress but is not yet in force and agreements with three countries are awaiting Congressional approval.  Thanks in part to President Bush’s leadership on free trade, America’s exports now account for a larger percentage of our Gross Domestic Product than at any other time on record. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/factsheets/tradeagreements.html

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.^[5] The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

In the US, Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton.

WASHINGTON — IN his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama focused on reversing the growth of economic inequality in the United States and restoring the American dream. At the same time, he also announced his support for fast track authority that would limit Congress’s role in determining the content of trade agreements.

The president’s call follows on legislation introduced earlier this month to grant him fast-track authority as a way of forcing Congress to speed up its consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation pact with Latin American and Asian nations.

But Mr. Obama’s desire for fast-track authority on the T.P.P. and other agreements clashes with another priority in his speech: reducing income inequality.

This month is the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which significantly eliminated tariffs and other trade barriers across the continent and has been used as a model for the T.P.P. Anyone looking for evidence on what this new agreement will do to income inequality in America needs to consider Nafta’s 20-year record.

The corporate push to get Congress to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is about to begin. Again and again we have been promised that these trade agreements “create jobs” and grow the economy. So do they?

“Free-Trade” Claims

Proponents of current corporate-negotiated trade agreements claim that the agreements increase jobs and boost economies. For example Time today has a column, Voters Won’t Like It, but We Have to Bring Back Free Trade, by Michael Schuman. Schuman claims that these agreements are “beneficial for economies overall — boosting exports, enhancing efficiency and reducing prices for consumers.”

Is this what actually happens? Let’s look at what has happened as a result of past agreements.

NAFTA

Negotiated by the George HW Bush administration and pushed by President Clinton, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect January 1, 1994.

Ross Perot famously said we would hear a “giant sucking sound” as NAFTA took jobs from the US and he was right. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) briefing paper Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA, “As of 2010, U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced 682,900 U.S. jobs.” (That is net jobs, taking into account jobs gained.)

The EPI study did not look into NAFTA’s effect on US wages (but a 2001 EPI study found wage decreases). Clearly, however, NAFTA enabled companies to close American factories and move production to low-wage factories, putting downward pressure on everyone’s wages.

Public Citizen’s document, NAFTA’s Broken Promises 1994-2013: Outcomes of the North American Free Trade Agreement points out that over one million Mexican campesino farmers were driven out of business (and likely driven north to the US) by subsidized US corn from our giant industrialized farms.

China

China became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. Americans were promised this would expand market opportunities for U.S. companies, thereby increasing jobs and American prosperity. How has this worked out?

In August, 2012 EPI estimated that the US lost 2.7 million jobs as a result of the U.S.-China trade deficit between 2001 and 2011, 2.1 million of them in manufacturing. Aside from job losses wages US wages fell due to the competition with cheap Chinese labor costing a typical household with two wage-earners around $2,500 per year.

Last month our country’s humongous trade deficit with China was $30.1 billion. That translates to a yearly deficit of more than $360 billion drained straight out of our economy.

Korea

In spite of the obvious problems with these trade agreements, the US approved an agreement with Korea that took effect March 15, 2012.

EPI reported in July, 2013 that the US-Korea free trade agreement had already cost the US 40,000 jobs and increased our trade deficit by $5.8 billion. According to EPI,

The tendency to distort trade model results was evident in the Obama administration’s insistence that increasing exports under KORUS would support 70,000 U.S. jobs. The administration neglected to consider jobs lost from the increasing imports and a growing bilateral trade deficit. In the year after KORUS took effect, the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea increased by $5.8 billion, costing more than 40,000 U.S. jobs. Most of the 40,000 jobs lost were good jobs in manufacturing.

So How Did They Work Out?

Again and again these trade agreements resulted in loss of jobs, particularly in higher-wage sectors of our economy like manufacturing, and big increases in the trade deficit. Yes, exports increased adding jobs in some sectors but imports increased more, costing more jobs than those gained. And the sectors that lost jobs tended to be higher-wage, like manufacturing.

While honest and fair trade is a good thing, these trade agreements are written to promote the interests of the giant and powerful multinational corporations over the interests of working people, smaller competing corporations, citizens groups, democracy and the environment. These “free-trade” deals increase unemployment, drive down wages and harm the environment while dramatically increasing the wealth and power of the 1%.

Again, fair trade is great. But trade deals written of by and for a few giant, multinational corporations are good for those corporations and the billionaires behind them — and only those corporations and the billionaires behind them.

The Worst Effect: Widespread Job Fear

When our government just lets companies close a factory here and move production to a country where people have few rights and can’t do anything to make their situation better, what do you think that will do to wages and rights here? When your boss can threaten to lay you off and move your job out of the country, what are you going to say? Are you going to complain about the job and demand a raise?

Job fear is rampant in today’s economy, so everything is sold as a promise to create jobs. Heck if eating bugs will “create jobs” I’ll try it. And you can be sure that the fried bug industry lobbyists are going to promise just that.

So these giant-corporate-promoting trade deals are sold with the promise that they will “create jobs” even though we see again and again that the opposite occurs. Ironically, the job fear so many of us experience is the result of these trade agreements that enabled corporations to close factories here, ship the equipment out of the country, make the same stuff there and bring it back here to sell in the same stores to the same customers. (For some reason that is called “trade.”)

These Agreements Reign In Our Democracy

Now the giant corporations are working on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Only a small part of this agreement covers “trade.” Much of it is about “investor rights.” This means that countries that enter into the agreement will not be able to do things that limit the profits of corporations. This includes trying to enforce environmental regulations, trying to get low-cost medicine to sick people, etc. It won’t matter if we call ourselves a sovereign country and a democracy — we will not be allowed to pass the laws that we want to if they interfere with the “rights” of the owners of the giant corporations.

These trade agreements are negotiated by giant multinational corporations along with government officials who understand they will get lucrative jobs with those corporations. They benefit only the 1% and the billionaires behind these corporations. They have not helped our economy and have not increased jobs. In fact they have led to massive trade deficits that are draining our economy, massive job loss and wage loss, and job fear for those still working.

We must insist that trade from now on agreements be negotiated with all of the stakeholders at the table in a process that guarantees their interests have equal weight with the interests of the giant corporations. Representatives of environmental organizations, human rights groups, labor groups, consumer groups and all other stakeholders must be included in these negotiations.

We must also insist that existing agreements be renegotiated so that We the People benefit, instead of just the billionaires behind the giant corporations.

Korea-US Free Trade Agreement Two Years Out: Promise vs. Reality

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-cohen/koreaus-free-trade-agreem_b_4965492.html

Negative Effects of Free Trade

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/negative-effects-trade-5221.html

The Truth About Free Trade Agreements | Trans-Pacific Partnership TPP

Argh! Obama Wants to Approve TPP - The Job-Killing So-Called Free Trade Deal

Ron Paul: Oppose Free Trade Agreements | NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership, TTIP

So let me get this right, you invest in multinational corporations, you support both bush I and bush II, you don't support clinton or obama but they all pushed the free trade agreements, which you support because it increases the profits of the investment you have in these multinational corporations and because the conservatives are pro free trade deals.

   So basically you support the corporations that are sending jobs over seas, monopolizing their markets, destroying the middle class and small business, damaging the environment and the world.

 Oh yeah destroying the sovereignty of the US.

Because you blindly follow you believe anarchy = kaos

 It actaully means- Anarchy refers to a society without a publicly enforced government. Since its inception in the original ancient Greek, anarchy has been used in the negative sense to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

No rulers not kaos

this is the old way

Message to the Voting Cattle

the new way

Michael Tellinger : Ancient technology and the Ubuntu movement

The Fall of Iraq - What You're Not Being Told [UPDATED August 8th]

17.Jun.2014 | SCG

 

Iraq is descending into chaos, but not for the reasons you're being fed by the politicians and the mainstream media.

In June of 2014 the world watched in shock as an Islamic militant group operating under the name of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS), took control of Mosul, Baiji and Tikrit and began pushing south to Baghdad. Fallujah has been under their control since January.

[Note they are also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL]

Iraqi military and police put up very little resistance in spite of the fact that they greatly outnumbered the militants. Most fled their posts and left their uniforms and weapons behind, those who didn't were killed.

ISIS, whose stated goal is to erase the border between Syria and Iraq, to establish an Islamic Caliphate encompassing both countries, and to impose sharia law, already holds vast swaths of territory, and they are rapidly gaining ground.

How did this happen?

That's an extremely important question. How you answer it will determine what comes next, and not just in Iraq. That's why the media spin doctors and politicians are out in force attempting to rewrite history, and turning reality completely on its head in the process.

For example we have people insisting this is happening because the U.S. and NATO failed to intervene in Syria.

Well that's a convenient answer isn't it?

The U.S. and NATO have been actively working to topple Assad by arming and funding the Syrian rebels since 2011. This has developed into a bloody civil war which has attracted Jihadists from all over the world. It has also created a vacuum of power which enabled groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra to organize and establish physical strongholds.

The U.S. claims to only be arming the "moderate" rebels, however, the leadership of the Free Syrian Army (aka the FSA) has stated that they regularly carry out joint operations with Al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Up until recently ISIS was a branch of Al-Qaeda. In February of this year Al-Qaeda's official leadership publicly disavowed ISIS due to their brutal tactics. That's why ISIS is referred to as a splinter group. Furthermore, we know for a fact that the majority of the weapons and funding from the U.S. and its allies are ending up in the hands of Jihadists, and U.S. officials have been aware of this since 2012. But don't take my word for it, go read this article from the New York Times yourself.

Do the math folks. ISIS would have never gotten a foothold Syria if the U.S. hadn't weakened the Syrian government, and the weapons they are using right now... were most likely paid for with your tax dollars.

But wait, this isn't just about Syria is it? It's also about Iraq. Which brings us to the other deranged narrative that is being promoted right now: that this chaos is unfolding because U.S. military withdrew prematurely in 2011.

You see Iraq is in ruins and unable to defend itself, because the U.S. military left the party too early. It's not because the Bush administration and the mainstream media convinced the public that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use them. It's not because the U.S. invaded Iraq on these false pretenses, disbanding the Iraqi army and police, and reducing the country to rubble in an attempt to put down the resulting insurgency. No, it's because eight years of military occupation wasn't enough.

To those who fought there, it's a punch in the gut to see your sacrifice was for nothing, but the occupation of Iraq was never going to end well, and the Bush administration knew that it wouldn't. But don't take my word for it. Let's take a look at this clip of Dick Cheney from 1994.

 

That was very astute Dick. You accurately predicted the mess you were going to help create in 2003. I would even venture to say that your predictions were more accurate than those who warned against this adventure. I'm impressed.

Now you'll notice that the talking heads of the left and the right are all trying to frame this crisis as the fault of the other side. They're both right.

Both sides of the aisle have blood on their hands, and this goes way beyond Bush and Obama. The United States has been tinkering in Iraq for a long, long time. In fact it was the CIA that put Saddam Hussein in power in 1963. Don't take my word for it, go read this article from the New York Times.

The U.S. government also backed Saddam in 1980 when he launched a war of aggression against Iran, even though they knew that he was using chemical weapons. But again don't take my word for it, go read this article by Foreign Policy magazine.

Fast forward to 1990. Saddam Hussein was embroiled in a dispute with Kuwait over oil prices and borders and he was considering taking action. Given America's support in the war against Iran, Saddam had no reason to believe that Kuwait would be any different, but just to be sure, he decided to consult with Washington first.

On July 25th of 1990 U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein. In the meeting Saddam described his case against Kuwait and told Glaspie that he viewed their activities as an act of military aggression. Glaspie responded by saying “We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait”, and she reinforced this by saying "this issue is not associated with America" Naturally Saddam interpreted this as a green light, and eight days later he invaded.

Later, when questioned in hearings, Glaspie claimed that though this quote was accurate, she had followed it up by insisting that Iraq settle its dispute non-violently.

However that's not what shows up in the transcripts of the conversation released by the New York Times. According to the transcript she said "All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

But maybe this was just an innocent diplomatic blunder right? Well not quite.

As soon as Saddam entered Kuwait the U.S. government launched a very interesting propaganda campaign to build up public support for a war. They claimed that Iraqi troops were slaughtering little babies by throwing them out of their incubators in hospitals, and they brought in teary eyed witnesses who testified to having seen the massacres.

 

Just one problem… the entire event was fabricated. It never happened. This woman who presented herself as a witness was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and her testimony was part of a public relations campaign organized by a company called Hill and Knowlton.

Once public support for the war was strong, the incubators story was dropped, and never mentioned again.

The U.S. invaded Iraq in 1991. During that war the U.S. military utilized approximately 640,000 pounds of Depleted Uranium ammunition. The Iraq was decimated, but the U.S. left Saddam in power.

The war didn't ever really end though. The U.S. kept Iraq under a draconian sanctions regime that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Clinton kept those sanctions in place for the entire duration of his presidency, and they knew what was happening.

 

You know how they say "those who don't know history are destined to repeat it"? That's really not an exaggeration.

Fast forward to 2003 and the Kuwaiti incubator story was swapped out for stories of mobile missile silos and yellow cake uranium.

And when it turned out that those weapons of mass destruction didn't exist, they acted like it was no big deal.

Then of course came Obama, riding in on promises of hope and change. But we saw how Obama toppled Libya in 2011, leaving that nation in utter chaos. Gaddafi was then killed in a rather gruesome fashion.

Before NATO brought down Gaddafi Libya had the highest standard of living in all of Africa. Now it's a perpetual war-zone. And of course we've seen how Obama has funded and armed the Syrian rebels in an attempt to bring down Assad.

 

Obama is operating from the same playbook, and yes there is a playbook.

 

Fortunately the future is not set in stone. We can influence the outcome, and we already are. We proved that in 2013 when both the left and the right dropped their petty bickering and unified against Obama's proposal to use airstrikes against Assad.

The pattern of deceit was the same, but this time the people didn't fall for it. The fact that we had the U.N. investigator Carla Del Ponte come out to say that the Syrian rebels were behind the sarin gas attacks helped, the fact that Putin short circuited the U.S. diplomatically helped, but the determining factor was the popular resistance, particularly the signs of discontent from within the military. You see, the ruling class is very hesitant to take a nation to war if the people and the military strongly oppose it. That's why the first casualty of war is always the truth.

What's going on in Iraq right now is horrific. ISIS is already committing atrocities against civilians on a massive scale. Inexplicably the Obama administration did not provide the Iraqi military with immediate air support even after the fall of Mosul. I say inexplicably, not because I support airstrikes, but because on June 12th, the U.S. Military conducted its second drone strike this month in Pakistan. Why would Obama refuse to act in Iraq when civilians are being massacred, while employing drones in Pakistan without hesitation?

I'll tell you why. Because the outrage over the atrocities that the ISIS is committing may be enough to provide the U.S. government with a backdoor into Syria.

You see It turns out that Obama is considering airstrikes, but not just in Iraq. He wants to extend those strikes into Syria as well. Well, that's convenient isn't it? Once the U.S. military is able to freely conduct operations in Syrian territory getting the regime change that they will be much, much easier.

[UPDATED August 8th]: On August 7th, 2014 Obama announced that airstrikes are imminent in Iraq, and as of August 8th we are hearing reports that the bombing has already begun in northern Iraq. Make no mistake, this will not end in Iraq. This is just the opening act. Remember ISIS holds territory in both Iraq and Syria.

It's the classic formula Problem, Reaction, Solution.

They created the problem, they are letting the public react and build up outrage, and then they are going to propose a "solution" that will sow the seeds for another generation of conflicts.

To short circuit this pattern the public needs to come to terms with the cold hold hard truth.

No matter what the U.S. does, and no matter how long they stay, there is no happy ending to this story. The chaos that we're seeing in this region is the direct result of half a century of U.S. military interventions and covert operations in the Middle East. It's time to acknowledge that bombing for peace doesn't work, regime change for stability doesn't work, and you can't fix a mistake by repeating it over and over.

If the U.S. honestly wants to stop the spread of Islamic terrorism, then they should stop funding and arming Jihadists in Syria. That would be a good starting point don't you think?

I notice you don't refute what I said -- because it's irrefutable - - but instead resort to ad hominem attacks. The insults don't change the truth, however.