Spread this around!

Waves work in a constant up-and-down movement, back and forth, and the WaveReaper, a simple mechanical device, takes advantage of this in a cheap way. As we said, the wave moves up and down, while most generators, rotate around an axle, and the wave size varies a lot, and creating problems, when you want to utilize their energy content. The current technologies regarding wave energy today is very costly, which means they can't compete with other ways of making energy. The technology can also be used to save the shoreline from The North Sea, Causing havoc in northern of Europe in Great Britain.

Onshore WaveReaper

This is a simple schematic, showing buoy, wire and one-way bearing, connected together. In case of storm and rough waves, it is a problem, for all wave energy constructions, however, the Wavereaper™, has a built in safety feature in its construction, that would avoid damage on the equipment, its due to the max lifting force of the barrels, since they will sink under the surface, if the force is to great. this will make the Wavereaper possible to work in any weather, however it should be constructed, to take advantage, of the medium wave, that is present at all time, for best cost benefit of the plant.

Another factor, water, and generators, yes, almost any technology, is having problem, when it comes to the oceans salty water without more expensive design and material. Water can leak inside equipment and ruin electrical circuits, and it must therefore be safeguarded against corrosion, and in those cases it is under water, against leakage, corrosion and pressure. Also water-depth, and the special environment, which crave divers, and other expensive equipment, has made wave energy very costly.

With other words, underwater technology is not cheap, and with these problems to solve, which means high costs, and therefore more expensive energy for the consumer. This is not what we would like, so it is need to solve the wave energy  generation concept, to go around these problems. And the solution is simple, we can use basic items, as wire, plastic barrels, one way bearings, pulley, an axle, flywheel and generator.

That is the main components, in what up to day, would be the cheapest wave energy technology in the world. It can even be built in wood or by choice bicycle parts! This is very good, in countries which have limited access to expensive metals, and heavy machining tools. Most of the parts in a WaveReaper generator, except wiring, can be made of wood, plastics or more expensive metal.

WaveReaper plastic barrels in the waves.

We will use a set of plastic barrels as boys, cost is low, and PVC isn't affected by salty ocean water. The barrels are placed near shore or longer out in deeper water, depending on amount of energy needed in particular wave plant.  The Barrels will also help for erosion problems in shoreline. For example in England.

Power transmitting wires, and aluminium pipes controlling the blocks.

To avoid the need for divers, and also avoid the need to have boats when the WaveReaper is deployed an special aluminium pipe is used. The pipe is mounted in sections, and prolonged further out in the sea. I think it is possible to have distances up to 300 meters from the shoreline, to get access to greaters dephts, where also the waves is greater. Lifting containers have to provide lifting force to the pipe, and right under every barrel wich is producing power to the onshore WaveReaper generator, a round plate is placed, this plate will prohibit the lifting force the rising barrel will have on the pipe, 

The pipe remains steady approx 5 meters under the water. This design will ensure that the operation of the WaceReaper plant can be done from the shoreline only, without need for divers, and without need for boats, wich is normally used when it comes to wave power generation. 

This is bringing down service cost, and also the level of education needed to run the plant is lesser, when noone have to dive. Diving is a very costly part of operation of a wave generator. If something happens with the blocks wires or barrels, the pipe can easy be hauled onto shore, and repaired or replaced.  

The barrels is on 2 meters distance from each other, and connected to the on mainland placed WaveReaper generator, via the “power transmitting wire” it is also is connected with a thinner wire, between them, so, if the power wire should break, the barrels, don’t get to drift away, in the sea. This will also even out the possibility that the barrels, would smash into each other, when the sea is rougher.

 

The Aluminium pipe can be burried in gravel and sand for inexpensive building.

The lifting capacity is also setting a maximum power input into the device, since if it is large and fast waves, the barrels would not lift more than it can, and forces is kept within its chosen range, chosen when constructing the WaveReaper plant. 

Power out put of waves kW per meter of WaveReaper, approximated 30% energy after conversion.

I have chosen to use cheap materials only, in this demonstration, because the need to bring down production costs, and make it possible to build this type of wave generation device, any where in the world, and with local materials, as car parts etc, which doesn't needs to be imported. Other materials could of course be used, and the schematics for its design of course, be different. Simple is better, it is said, and fewer parts, and bearings, will bring lower cost of building, and also repair.

Front Scematics WaveReaper

The wire is connected to a chain in the end, witch works on a gearwheel sitting on a one-way bearing, mounted on an axle. This translates the pulling force of the wire, to an circular movement which is good for cheap generators. The wire is for this case 4 mm stainless steel, which give a lifting ability of approx 300 Kg before it brakes. Also plastic can be used as the Pvc band, which today is commonly used for packaging goods on pallets, this type of PVC band has high strength, and is also light, and cost-effective, of course the UV light from the sun is affecting it in the long run, but the part that is in the water, should be somewhat guarded from the UV rays.

Flywheels is also mounted on the axle, to collect, even out and store the momentum which is produced by the lifting barrel, this will even out and, smooth the turning's of the axle, to the generator, which is driven by a pulley, who will give it correct rpm. A simple brake, which can never wear down, is also planned, in those cases, constant current generators, or a special electronics device is not used.

Profile Scematics WaveReaper

When the wire is coming up to the generator housing, a chain is mounted to the wire, which drive the Gear wheel, and the one way bearing, which makes the chain draw, when the waves raises the barrel, but let it spin freely back, when the wave height is going down again, also a small weight is connected to the chain, to make it even out slack of the wire. A flywheel is mounted, and a pulley drives the generator, evenly.

Suggested Prototype Design

One-way bearing, with pulley and wire, and with bigger loads, chain and gearwheel, is an option. One-way bearings can be seen in ex. bicycles, the rotate freely in one direction, but in the other direction, they grip, and transfer force, this is used in the Wave reaper, and makes it simple, and cost effective. The waves up and down, movement is translated to rotating movement, suited for a generator, of choice.

Suggested Prototype Design

The Benefits of the One-way bearing.

The barrels will of course jump up and down in random patterns; this will add to an even movement of the generator axle, and its flywheel, as soon as a wave has energy to contribute, it will transmit its force to the wire, and to the axle. The flywheel is storing the momentum gained from the waves temporarily. 

Because of its design, the WaveReaper, is always self adjusting regarding wave height, and tidal shifts, and higher or lower water levels due to shifting weather patterns, no adjustment needed, the Wavereaper™ is always balancing itself out, to optimal level in the ocean.

500 Kilowatt to 1 Megawatt Plant

 

Example: number of barrels in each row 10, and rows 10, the plant would be 20 x 20 meters of area, 400m2, and will have 100 connected wires, which transfer the mechanical energy, to the generator. This type of plants, give 100 to 500 kW every hour, which generates profits, of 6500 to 25 000 dollars of revenue monthly, building cost of the plant is estimated to 20 000 dollars only. This will give that the WaveReaper earns itself, in a few months, instead of many many years!

No complicated technology is needed, which would need delicate conditions, or a lot of service. This technology,  offered globally for free,  Anyone can now build his very own, generator.

Let everyone know, friend and foe, its time for things to change in the worlds energy sector. Oil based economy, is not needed anymore, lets all accept it, and build a better world, lets feed the hungry, cure the sick, and of course, stop polluting the environment, with the oil based stone age technology.

OFFSHORE WaveReaper Giga to Terra Watt Design

Here Is the Offshore Wavereaper design, and as pictures show, we can now use one single axle to the generatorset, wich brings alot of power onto the single generator, wich can be very big in size.

View From Top

 View From Front

 

 View From Side Showing Sloaping angle

This Design Can Choose power output easy

Thanks From The Inventors Team

Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos

Not since JFK has there been such a reservoir of expectations

Tuesday, 20 January 2009

As the new US administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.
That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States' management of it is widespread.
At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings. Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.
Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.
The nadir of the international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.
The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organisation of the world. The economic world has been globalised. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order. Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point.
So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place, so far without achieving more than stemming incipient panic. International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.
In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonised in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome.
America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterised too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences. The result was a certain inherent unilateralism – the standard complaint of European critics – or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.
Not since the inauguration of president John F Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.
The extraordinary impact of the President-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realisation that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.
The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system. China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernisation of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.
Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasising infrastructure development and domestic consumption. It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 per cent that Chinese experts define as the line that challenges political stability.
What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the ASEAN-plus-three concept. At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order. Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.
The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the postwar period – except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military.
The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programmes with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process. We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance. An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope.
The author was National Security Adviser, 1969-75 and US Secretary of State, 1973-77.

Obama is changing nothing with the secret prison systems.

Obama is going to be worse than Bush. Americans; and the World, will wish bush was back after Obama.

Obamas mentor was none other than Brzezinski.

Lets look at the New York Times article on this subject. Its very telling.

We know that supposedly the entire camp structure and facilities World Wide are shutting down, however:

Habeas Corpus, what is it?

"Habeas corpus formed a part of the American legal system from colonial times, and it was the only specific right incorporated in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Habeas corpus has been suspended a number of times, most notably by Abraham Lincoln during the early days of the Civil War.

Habeas corpus became a subject of renewed controversy after the Sept. 11th attacks. When the Bush administration created a system of military tribunals for dealing with terrorism subjects in 2002, it asserted that "illegal non-combatants'' fell outside of the Geneva Conventions and were not entitled to habeas corpus. That view was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2006. Congress, then controlled by Republicans, responded by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees challenging the bases for their confinement. Instead, such challenges were to be governed by the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, which allowed detainees to appeal decisions of the military tribunals to the District of Columbia Circuit, but only under circumscribed procedures, including a presumption that the evidence before the military tribunal was accurate and complete.

In a 5 to 4 decision issued on June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that approach to be unconstitutional, declaring that foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have the right to challenge their detention there in federal courts." http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/habeas_corpus/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Notice that the Supreme Court on June 12, 2008 stated "have the right to challenge their detention there in federal courts."

Now lets look at what Obama is going to due as was found in the New York Times article. Notice their use of double speak throughout.

"They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said."

The CIA will not be allowed to use coercive interrogation methods, but the same ones that the Military uses when interrogating TERRORISM suspects. This entire circumstance was 'how the military was interrogating' terrorist suspects was it not?

"They could also allow Mr. Obama to reinstate the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation operations in the future, by presidential order, as some have argued would be appropriate if Osama bin Laden or another top-level leader of Al Qaeda were captured."

So, at any time Obama can reinstate the same operation that they are supposedly closing. Is this not the same power still in effect that Bush had? Not to mention that the entire reason for the operations to begin with; Osama bin laden and Al- CIAta, have not only not been investigated, but spoken off by Bush as "not important any longer", should really indicate to most people that it never was important to find Al CIAta, nor will it be, because if so, they wont have the PATSY any longer to blame things on, for they did create Al Qaeda for that exact purpose.

"A government official said Mr. Obama’s order on the C.I.A. would still allow its officers abroad to temporarily detain terrorism suspects and transfer them to other agencies, but would no longer allow the agency to carry out long-term detentions."

What agencies? And until that is known for sure, then nothing has changed.


"Mr. Obama had suggested in the campaign that, in place of military commissions, he would prefer prosecutions in federal courts or, perhaps, in the existing military justice system, which provides legal guarantees similar to those of American civilian courts."

No, there is no similar under the Constitution. "perhaps, in the existing military justice system" is not an option. They are not in the Military; or are they? This action would be the same as now, against their Rights. This is not a War, no matter what Bush has said. They are not Military Combatants as the Supreme Court has pointed out "In a 5 to 4 decision issued on June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that approach to be unconstitutional, declaring that foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have the right to challenge their detention there in federal courts." Source - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?_r=2&hp

You see, they SHOULD be allowed Redress in Federal Courts, having cases 'against' the United States Government. This would open a way up as well to PROSECUTE Bush, but its not going to happen under Obama. We are already seeing him protect his 'cabinet' affiliates as well as his own ass on many issues that he was in support of in his years in the Senate.

NO, WE DON'T HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT

By: Devvy
January 22, 2009

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com

“It is a terrible thing when you think you got on a bandwagon and it turns out to be a garbage truck." Ernst (Putzi) Hanfstaengl*

The circus out in Washington, DC., for the unlawful swearing in of the impostor president, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro and so forth, is now over. All the gushing and slobbering over the trashy looking rag worn by the militant Michelle Obama, has faded into the night. I wonder how many of the mindless mouth pieces giving their commentary about the "wonderful, smart First Lady," know that in 1993, Michelle Obama, was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to stop practicing law? The faux First Lady was ordered by the court; it was not her choice. (Click here). The records are sealed by the court so we don't know why, but I am told by lawyers sending me email, it had to be something major for such drastic action.

The A-list stars from Hollywood were out in full regalia to celebrate history: the first African American president. Barack Hussein Obama aka and so forth, is the first mulatto to run for president, but he is not the 44th president. He is an usurper who has committed a horrible fraud on our nation. Someone or a number of people knew years ago that his citizenship would become an issue and began greasing the skids to pull off this fraud.

In 2004, the impostor president unlawfully ran for the U.S. Senate. Allegedly, with help from ACORN and the massive vote fraud we see every election, he won a seat in the U.S. Senate under a law that does not exist. That election was November 2004.

One year later, Sarah Herlihy, an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis gets her paper published in the Kent University Law Review on line. Herlihy claims in her paper that the citizenship requirement of the U.S. Constitution has been called "stupid and discriminating." Of course, she never tells us who makes this claim. Please note that a partner at the same law firm was one Bruce I. Ettelson, who apparently had a working relationship on finance committees for Obama and buffoon, Sen. Richard Durbin. Herlihy's paper, which shows "author approved editing" as November 23, 2005, is titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizenship Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle." You can read the paper here.

In February 2008, Democrats (and one Republican) began pushing legislation on the issue of citizenship:

"...on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

"Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find....

"Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

"One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?"

Somewhere along the way, the issue of Obama's father being a Kenyan national and under British rule (British Neutrality Act of 1948) surfaced while the new Messiah was being groomed to steal the White House. Obama is a lawyer and has spent a great deal of time around other high power lawyers. Someone along the way said, uh, we have a problem. Beginning not too long after Obama became a U.S. Senator, the thorny problem of the U.S. Constitution had to be dealt with and out comes a paper by his lawyer friend, Herlihy, which opens up the discussion. Next comes the smoke screen legislation which was really to "qualify" Obama. Of course, it didn't work, so with the help of the useful fools in the dominant media and cable news networks like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, the issue was covered up and/or ridiculed as nothing more than sore losers or conspiracy nuts.

There is a conspiracy and a cover up here, just as there is regarding all the documents and records Obama is hiding from the American people.

We know that Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., met in private with Obama on January 14, 2009. A gross conflict of interest since Roberts is deciding current cases before the court where Obama is either the defendant or the target of the litigation. Roberts' role in the unlawful swearing in of the impostor president was a sobering moment. It made me sick to my soul. The very next day, January 21, 2009, Phil Berg's second case which was heard in secrecy by the almighty Supreme Court last Friday was denied.

The next case to be heard in conference (private) is tomorrow: Lightfoot v Bowen. Dr. Orly Taitz is counsel on that one. Orly also filed a new lawsuit on Monday, January 19, 2009, in response to an Executive Order issued by George Bush, on January 16, 2009. You can read that lawsuit here; it explains the basis of the lawsuit in relationship to Bush's EO. Summons were issued; Federal District Judge David O Carter was assigned. The Case Number is: SACV09-00082DOC. Orly beat the clock with Obama's Chief of Staff, who has such a shady background (Madsen is a die hard progressive Democrat), one wonders how he could get any security clearance at all:

"White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel dispatched a memo yesterday afternoon to federal agencies and departments, directing them to stop pending rules until the new administration has time to conduct a "legal and policy review" of each one. The directive has become a first-day tradition among presidents, dating to Ronald Reagan in 1981, helping incoming administrations put their own philosophical stamp on the regulatory work that is a subtle but potent tool of presidential power. Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did the same thing."

The United States Justice Foundation has issued a subpoena duces tecum for Obama's academic and housing records from Occidental College for their lawsuit representing Alan Keyes, et al v Bowen, Obama, Biden, et al. You can view the documents here. Someone asked what will happen if Occidental comes back and says they have no records for Barack Hussein Obama? That immediately raises a red flag and the good folks at the USJF can file a new subpoena for Barry Soetoro, or petition the judge to force this guy in the White House to disclose his legal name so these lawful subpoenas can be served and processed.

There is a new petition to impeach Obama; you can view it here. I wouldn't bother signing it. God bless these folks for wanting to see justice done, but I don't believe this petition will have any impact. First, the incompetent mad woman running the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, will never let such a petition get past her skirt. And, second, while I am not a lawyer, the high crimes and misdemeanors cited, i.e., the fraud committed by Obama, was perpetrated before he was unlawfully sworn into office. Dr. Edwin Vieira explained this in a column last October: "Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4)."

Furthermore, Dr. Edwin Vieira points out in a column last December, even should all these constitutionally based lawsuits fail with the U.S. Supreme Court, the lawsuits will continue over any legislation signed by the usurper president.

Obama has pulled off this gigantic hoax. For now. Judging by my email and many columns posted the last two days, Americans are discouraged, outraged and just plain old-fashioned whizzed off. Many are saying the Constitution is dead. Edwin addressed that in a column, March 14, 2006:

"On the other side, if "the Constitution is dead", then to what authority can patriots appeal against the depredations of malign public officials and a corrupted electorate? Without the Constitution, patriots are mere dreamers or rebels whom the Establishment can condemn as crackpots or criminals. In short, if common Americans concede that "the Constitution is dead", they will surrender the high ground, the initiative, and even their own best weapon, and put themselves at their enemies' mercy. Moreover, if "the Constitution is dead", how and with what should or could patriots attempt to replace the present political apparatus that oppresses them?"

Those who birthed this republic did not cut and run even when they were bloodied and crawling on their hands and knees. We shall do no less. The pain will be great, but so was the pain of Nathan Hale when he was hung at age 21. Last April, I stood at his home up in Connecticut. It was very quiet and no one was around. I stood there thinking about the patriots of that time. I've been to Bull Run, Valley Forge, the homes of Jefferson, Andy Jackson, Madison, Washington and Gen. Robert E. Lee. Obama has been made powerful by those working to destroy this country. As the impostor president's power has grown, so too has his arrogance which will be his undoing. The day of reckoning for Obama the Impostor President will come.

What about the masses who responded to the prod and voted for Obama? It's being reported that nearly two million people showed up for the coronation two days ago. It would have been convenient to have stands along the way to fit these people for their chains of bondage. I hope you can take time over the weekend to read a document I covered on my radio show as the coronation parties were in full swing. What made millions swoon, weep, raise their hands to the heavens, declare Obama the next Messiah and go over the edge for a nobody with a closed past - besides the color of his skin?

As I told my listening audience, I am not a conspiracy freak. Frequently, I get very angry email from patriots for debunking some popular theories that don't hold water. A couple of months ago, I read this paper and as I read the 67 pages, it all came together. Untold numbers of us couldn't figure out this "Obama phenomenon" and what was causing it....until I read this explanation about conversational hypnosis. Not only did I read it, I spent six hours running down the foot notes and studying Erickson's method used and accepted in the field of psycho-analysis.

Finally, it all made sense. As a lay person not trained and with little prior understanding on this issue, all I could keep wondering is are these people all mad, desperate or did they all take the same pill? No, Obama simply used a technique of hypnosis on mass crowds and turned them into little better than melting butter. A master orator without an original thought in his head, he used his voice and hands to mesmerize.

I learned a great deal from this document. At some point the stupefaction will wear off and millions of people, except for too many black Americans who voted for one half of Obama's race (most of them forget Obama's mother was Caucasian), will begin to wonder why they voted for Obama as he blunders along and the economy worsens. Except, of course, those blinded by skin color. An incredible statement was made by a low IQ minion of Obama's which sends an ugly message:

"...while watching ABC News coverage of the inauguration with my wife over lunch, hosts Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer were joined by Donna Brazile, a Democratic African-American author, educator and political activist, who gave a humorous account of her snatching the complementary fleece blanket she found abandoned in Barack Obama’s chair after the swearing-in ceremony. Apparently she wanted a souvenir of the momentous occasion and when the opportunity arose, she took it.

"As they all laughed about it, Gibson responded playfully to her candid admission by saying: “We're going to check with the legal staff and find out if that's a felony or a misdemeanor.” Brazile then gave a stern look into the camera and said: “We have a black president – it's neither.”

Read this document:

Obama's use of hypnotic technique during his speeches

You can decide for yourself. I'm certain those who support Obama will poo-poo it away. They've got too much riding on his campaign promises. These very same people haven't done a minute of research on Obama's background, his proven communist ties and Marxist beliefs. Obama's faithful will not see or hear his slick lies because the thought of betrayal is simply too much to handle. As Judge Andrew Napolitano so accurately named his book, A Nation of Sheep, can you hear the baaa-baaa still echoing from the Washington Mall?

Obama is sworn in for second time

Barack Obama has been sworn in as US president for the second time in two days, because one word was given out of order during Tuesday's ceremony.

The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts, administered the oath again at the White House.

The decision to repeat the oath was taken out of an abundance of caution, an official said.

But Mr Obama joked: "We decided it was so much fun...." before adding: "We're going to do it very slowly."

In contrast to the first oath-taking, Mr Obama did not swear on a Bible and his wife Michelle was not at his side.

And instead of an audience of millions, only a few close aides saw the second attempt, with even journalists excluded from the Map Room of the White House.

Tuesday's stumble went largely unnoticed at the time.

In the oath, as set out in the US Constitution, the new incumbent swears to "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States".

But as Chief Justice Roberts read out the oath for Mr Obama to repeat, he moved the word "faithfully" to the end of the phrase.

Mr Obama, apparently noticing the error, hesitated. Mr Roberts repeated the phrase correctly, but Mr Obama went with the incorrect formula.

"We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately," said White House counsel Greg Craig.

"Out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath a second time."

Two other presidents, Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur, have had to repeat the oath because of similar problems.

And Chief Justice William Taft introduced a new word into the oath when he swore in President Herbert Hoover in 1929, promising to "preserve, maintain and defend the Constitution", instead of "preserve, protect and defend".

Obama Appoints Top Notch CFR, Bilderberg Members

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
January 22, 2009

Obama announces the appointment of CFR-Bilderberg members George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke at the State Department.

From Reuters:

In a flurry of diplomatic activity in his first week in office, U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday named special envoys for the Middle East and the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.

Newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Obama had chosen George Mitchell, a former senator and seasoned international trouble-shooter, as an envoy who will try to jump-start moribund Arab-Israeli peace talks.

Obama tapped former ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke as a special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan and related issues.

George Mitchell is not simply a CFR member — he is a former director of the globalist organization.

Mitchell “got his start in Federal politics when appointed by President Jimmy Carter (CFR member),” writes Tom Kovach. “Mitchell is chairman of the second-largest law firm in the world, DLA Piper. You know, the firm that recently put a full-service, ‘multicultural’ office in Dubai. You know, the port city in a country that tried to buy American port operations with oil money. Mitchell’s law firm has a ’strategic alliance’ with a consulting group owned by former US Secretary of Defense William Cohen (CFR member), which did PR work on behalf of DP World, the Dubai company that tried to buy the ports.” DLA Piper represents more than half of the top 250 Fortune 500 clients and nearly half of the FTSE 350 or their subsidiaries.

Mitchell sits on the steering committee of the American Friends of Bilderberg along with such luminaries as Conrad Black, Henry Kissinger, and David Rockefeller,

	Alex Jones confronts globalist minion Richard Holbrooke at the Bilderberg meeting in Ottawa.

Ditto Richard Holbrooke. He is on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations. A dedicated Clintonite and former ambassador to the United Nations, Holbrooke brokered the Dayton Peace Accords, the “peace agreement” that partitioned and reduced Bosnia to a NATO and IMF client state, a model of bankster privatization. Holbrooke’s “peace plan” was only realized after massive NATO bombardment of Bosnian Serb territory.

Holbrooke is a consummate insider and global elite operative. Along with Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, and Paul Allaire, Holbrooke directs the American Friends of Bilderberg, an organization that takes money from Exxon, Arco, IBM, and other transnational corporations and has its meetings funded by the globalist Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Carnegie Endowment fund.

It looks like the White House is shaping up to become a branch office of the CFR and Bilderbergers, but then this is simply business as usual. For years, the CFR — with its associate memberships in such international units as the Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, and Bildebergers — has infested not only the White House, but the State Department, the NSC, the Pentagon, and much of the federal government.

“CFR membership is also inclusive of West Point Superintendents, Allied Supreme Commanders, Secretaries of Defense, and Military Policy members. Media memberships include Time, New York Times, Newsweek, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.,” writes Noah W. Hutchings. “The CFR also exerts influence on United States personnel at the various United Nations agencies, which is natural, because UN goals usually parallel CFR’s goals.”

The American people think they voted for change, but in fact they simply signed off on four or eight more years of globalist rule.

Planning Agency Approves Homeland Security Complex

By Mary Beth Sheridan

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 9, 2009; Page B01

After years of battling historic preservationists, the federal government won approval yesterday to build a massive headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security on a 176-acre hilltop site east of the Anacostia River.

The $3.4 billion headquarters would be one of the largest construction projects in the Washington area since the Pentagon was built in the 1940s. Advocates say it would generate economic activity in one of the city's poorer corners and provide a secure workplace for 14,000 Homeland Security employees scattered across the Washington area.

"This is an important step forward for Anacostia and for Washington," said John V. Cogbill III, chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, which voted 9 to 1 to approve the master plan for the headquarters, to be built on the grounds of St. Elizabeths Hospital.

Historical preservationists have said the project would ruin a national landmark site with panoramic views of the District, where the first federal psychiatric institution was established in Southeast Washington in 1852. Some questioned whether a high-security facility tucked behind two layers of fencing would produce much of a payoff for the neighborhood.

"The DHS employees might as well be working on the moon for all their presence will benefit the city," testified David Garrison, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, who said that the personnel would largely commute from the suburbs.

The dissenting vote on the master plan came from a National Park Service representative, who warned that the development could endanger the site's historic landmark status.

If Congress provides funding, construction will begin next year and continue through 2016, according to the plan. Building the complex and renovating existing historical structures would create at least 26,000 jobs, officials said.

"The timing is optimal," said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who has championed the project. "Development has dried up in the city, and this is direct government-funded work."

Under the plan, most of the facility would be built on the vacant western campus of St. Elizabeths, property owned by the federal General Services Administration. One large building would be constructed on land leased from the District on the eastern campus, where the D.C. government is hoping to lure offices, restaurants and shops.

Residents of nearby neighborhoods have expressed mixed feelings about the complex. James Bunn, executive director of the Ward 8 Business Council, predicted that Homeland Security's migration would serve as a long-needed catalyst for new retail and housing in the Congress Heights community.

"Those 14,000 employees will need a place to live," he said. "And they'll need somewhere to eat. I can already see a coffee shop or a sit-down restaurant. It's a win-win situation for the ward."

But Linda Jackson, executive director of the East of the River Community Development Corp., questioned whether Homeland Security employees would leave their self-contained campus along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and frequent nearby businesses.

Obama & The Coming Darkness

OBAMA MET WITH HIS WARLORDS on January 21, 2009, his very first day of his puppet-presidency. On the table for discussion was the “eventual” pull out of US troops from Iraq and the escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

The warlords present for the meeting were Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, and Central Command head General David Petraeus.

Regarding the Iraqi “pullout,” in the weeks since his election, Obama has changed course on campaign pledges expressing his willingness to be “flexible.” And that “flexibility” is owing to US commanders in Iraq insisting that there is “no way troops can be pulled out” at the rate of two combat brigades per month so as to meet Obama’s pledge of a 16 month withdrawal timeline.

Regarding the war in Afghanistan, Petraeus called for 30,000 more troops, including four combat brigades and a Stryker patrol, to arrive in Afghanistan over the next year. Obama stated that he wants to accelerate that deployment.

In his inauguration speech, Obama said that America is suffering from “a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable and that the next generation must lower its sights.” Obama almost got it right. America’s decline is now occurring rather than it being a future “inevitable” event. And the next generation must rather “raise its sights” 7,000 miles away, to be sent off to Afghanistan to die or be maimed in a war they neither understand nor believe in.

Obama’s explanation of America’s mission in Afghanistan is to “prevent the Taliban from launching attacks against the United States.” Any fool knows that attacks against the US from the uneven hills of Afghanistan, 7000 miles away, are an impossibility. And besides, the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, have no interest in being part of a second one, and wouldn’t be fighting American soldiers if the US had not started a war against them in the first place 7 years ago.

In Sun Tzu’s ancient classic, The Art Of War, he warned against a protracted war, saying, “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. If victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and ardor will be dampened.”

The only ones to “benefit” from the Afghan war are the US defense contractors, Wall Street Jewish bankers, and the Warlords in Obama’s administration.

But the ones who will lose in Obama’s protracted and escalated Afghan war, will be the parents of the sons and daughters who will return home in body bags — whose “ardor” will not only be dampened, but extinguished.

___________________________________
For More See: Why Obama Will Fail In Afghanistan Click Here

And: Obama To Lead US To More War, Death, Genocide Click Here

Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears

Posted By: Gerald Warner at Jan 20, 2009 at 18:50:54 [General]

Posted in: Society , Eagle Eye

Tags:

Barack Obama, Freedom of Choice Act, Neil Kinnock, stimulus package, Tony Blair

This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahison des clercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.

We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.

The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.

To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.

Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).

It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.

It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.

These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.

US-Egyptian hunt for Iranian ship

US and Egyptian warships were scouring the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea Tuesday, Jan. 20 to waylay an Iranian freighter carrying scores of heavy rockets for delivery to Hamas. DEBKAfile's exclusive sources report they were acting on intelligence that a ship loaded with an estimated 60 tons of arms to replenish Hamas' depleted war stocks had set out from the Iranian Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas on Jan. 17.

The cargo includes 50 Fajr missiles, scores of Grads, armor-piercing missiles and tons of sundry advanced hardware.

http://www.debka.com/index1.php




European Union member states authorised the export of €200 million in arms exports to Israel in 2007, the latest figures from Brussels disclose, with France far and away the Jewish state's biggest European weapons supplier.

According to the EU's 2008 report on arms export licences, published in December for the 2007 calendar year and consolidating the accounts that member states must annually submit, 18 member states authorised a total of 1,018 such licences to Israel worth €199,409,348.

Machine guns: the EU sold €200 million of weapons to Israel in 2007 (Photo: wikipedia)

* Print
* Comment article

France, Germany and Romania were the top three exporters. France issued export licences worth €126 million, Germany authorised €28 million and Romania €17 million, the EUobserver can reveal.

In response to calls from opposition politicians that the UK government halt its arms exports to Israel and push all other EU member states to do the same, a British foreign office spokesperson said: "We do not approve any defence related exports if we judge that there is a risk that they will be used for external aggression or internal repression.

"We routinely refuse export licences where we believe that there is a risk of this. Any application relating to Israel is considered on this basis," the spokesperson continued.

EU arms code of conduct

The EU has maintained an arms export code of conduct since 1998, but it is overseen at the member state level, not in Brussels, so if Mr Brown were to push for such a move, he would have to convince the 26 other member states.

In 2007, €12 million in small arms and ammunition were exported to Israel by Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Romania and the UK.

Another €23.5 million in "light weapons," meaning those that require two to three people to operate them, such as bombs, torpedoes and explosive devices, were supplied by the Czech Republic, Germany, Romania and Slovenia.

Belgium, France and Romania also sent Israel €18.5 million worth of aircraft and related material. Paris is responsible for €10 million of this sum.

In a fourth, very broad category of armaments in the EU's consolidated report, "electronic equipment" - referring to electronics specifically modified for military use, navigation and guidance equipment, and satellite jamming systems, some €94 million was exported by France (€89 million) and Germany (€5 million).

The rest of the €200 million consists of weapons that fall into other minor categories beyond small arms, light weapons, aircraft and electronics.

Italy, traditionally a major arms exporter, only supplied Israel with €0.5 million in weapons in 2007. Spain, also a leading trader in the sector also sold Tel Aviv just €4.5 million worth of armaments.

Sweden, another major European weapons producer, along with eight other EU member states, delivered nothing to the Jewish state.

Across the EU, only 28 export licences were refused as a result of human rights, internal security or regional stability reasons.

Kaye Stearman, of the UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade, told this website: "The UN and impartial observers have regularly documented how Israeli military actions have violated international humanitarian law.

"Although the UK's own Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria is supposed to assess the impact of arms sales on regional peace, security and stability, and the country's human rights record, it seems that this is ignored in the case of Israel."

"Britain must immediately stop selling arms, including arms components, to Israel and also stop buying arms from Israeli companies - arms that have been 'tested' in the laboratories of the occupied territories."

talk about double standards, and thats without mentioning the zionist states nuclear arsenal..

Lights, Camera… Covert Action: The Deep Politics of Hollywood

by Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham

Global Research, January 21, 2009

Email this article to a friend Print this article

Here we build a prima facae case supporting the idea that Hollywood continues to be a target for infiltration and subversion by a variety of state agencies, in particular the CIA. Academic debates on cinematic propaganda are almost entirely retrospective, and whilst a number of commentators have drawn attention to Hollywood’s longstanding and open relationship with the Pentagon, little of substance has been written about the more clandestine influences working through Hollywood in the post-9/11 world. As such, our work delves into the field of what Peter Dale Scott calls "deep politics"; namely, activities which cannot currently be fully understood due to the covert influence of shadowy power players. The Latest Picture A variety of state agencies have liaison offices in Hollywood today, from the FBI, to NASA and the Secret Service. Few of these agencies, though, have much to offer in exchange for favourable storylines, and so their influence in Hollywood is minimal. The major exception here is the Department of Defense, which has an ‘open’ but barely publicized relationship with Tinsel Town, whereby, in exchange for advice, men and invaluable equipment, such as aircraft carriers and helicopters, the Pentagon routinely demands flattering script alterations. Examples of this policy include changing the true identity of a heroic military character in Black Hawk Down (2001) due to his real-life status as a child rapist; the removal of a joke about "losing Vietnam" from the James Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), and cutting images of Marines taking gold teeth from dead Japanese soldiers in Windtalkers (2002). Instances such as these are innumerable, and the Pentagon has granted its coveted "full cooperation" to a long list of contemporary pictures including Top Gun (1986), True Lies (1994), Executive Decision (1996), Air Force One (1997), The Sum of All Fears (2002), Transformers (2007), Iron Man (2008), as well as TV series such as JAG (1995-2005). Such government activity, whilst morally dubious and barely advertised, has at least occurred within the public domain. This much cannot be said of the CIA’s dealings with Hollywood, which, until recently, went largely unacknowledged by the Agency. In 1996, the CIA announced with little fanfare the dry remit of its newly established Media Liaison Office, headed by veteran operative Chase Brandon. As part of its new stance, the CIA would now openly collaborate on Hollywood productions, supposedly in a strictly ‘advisory’ capacity. The Agency’s decision to work publicly with Hollywood was preceded by the 1991 "Task Force Report on Greater CIA Openness," compiled by CIA Director Robert Gates’ newly appointed ‘Openness Task Force,’ which secretly debated –ironically– whether the Agency should be less secretive. The report acknowledges that the CIA "now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation," and the authors of the report note that this helped them "turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success’ stories, and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others." It goes on to reveal that the CIA has in the past "persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests…" These admissions add weight to several reports and Congressional hearings from the 1970s which indicated that the CIA once maintained a deep-rooted and covert presence in national and international media, informally dubbed "Operation Mockingbird." In its 1991 report, the CIA acknowledged that it had, in fact, "reviewed some film scripts about the Agency, documentary and fictional, at the request of filmmakers seeking guidance on accuracy and authenticity." But the report is at pains to state that, although the CIA has "facilitated the filming of a few scenes on Agency premises," it does "not seek to play a role in filmmaking ventures." But it seems highly implausible that the CIA, whilst maintaining a decades-long presence in media and academia, would have shown no interest in the hugely influential Cinema industry. Indeed, it should come as no surprise that the CIA has been involved in a number of recent blockbusters and TV series. The 2001 CBS TV series, The Agency, executive produced by Wolfgang Petersen (Das Boot, Air Force One) was actually co-written by ex-CIA agent and Marine Bazzel Baz, with additional ex-CIA agents working as consultants. The CIA gladly opened its doors to the production, and facilitated both external and internal shots of its Langley headquarters as the camera gazed lovingly at the CIA seal. This arrangement was comparable to the Feds’ efforts on the popular TV series The FBI (1965-74) which was shaped by the Bureau in cooperation with ABC and which thanked J. Edgar Hoover in the credits of each episode. Similarly, The Agency glorified the actions of US spooks as they fought predictable villains including the Russian military, Arab and German terrorists, Columbian drug dealers, and Iraqis. One episode even shows the CIA saving the life of Fidel Castro; ironically, since the CIA in real life had made repeated attempts to assassinate the Cuban President. Promos for the show traded on 9/11, which had occurred just prior to its premiere, with tag lines like "Now, more than ever, we need the CIA." A TV movie, In the Company of Spies (1999) starring Tom Berenger depicted a retired CIA operative returning to duty to save captured Agency officers held by North Korea. The CIA was so enthusiastic about this product that it hosted its presentation, cooperated during production, facilitated filming at Langley, and provided fifty off-duty officers as extras, according to its website. Espionage novelist Tom Clancy has enjoyed an especially close relationship with the CIA. In 1984, Clancy was invited to Langley after writing The Hunt for Red October, which was later turned into the 1990 film. The Agency invited him again when he was working on Patriot Games (1992), and the movie adaptation was, in turn, granted access to Langley facilities. More recently, The Sum of All Fears (2002) depicted the CIA as tracking down terrorists who detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil. For this production, CIA director George Tenet gave the filmmakers a personal tour of the Langley HQ; the film’s star, Ben Affleck also consulted with Agency analysts, and Chase Brandon served as on-set advisor. Media sources indicate that the CIA also worked on the Anthony Hopkins/Chris Rock feature Bad Company (2002) and the Jerry Bruckheimer blockbuster Enemy of the State (2001). However, no details whatsoever about these appear to be in the public domain. Similarly, Spy Game director Tony Scott’s DVD commentary for said film indicates that he visited Langley whilst in pre-production but, according to one report, endorsement appeared to have been withheld after Chase Brandon read the final draft of the script. More details than usual emerged about CIA involvement in the Tom Hanks movie Charlie Wilsons War (2007) and Robert De Niro’s The Good Shepherd (2006) – but not many. Milt Beardon had traveled to the Moscow Film Festival with De Niro and claims the pair then "disappeared and hung out with the mob and KGB crowd for a while. I introduced him to generals and colonels, the old guys I had been locked with for so many years." De Niro later tagged along with Beardon to Pakistan. "We wandered around the North-West Frontier Province," Bearden recalls, "crossed the bridge [to Afghanistan] I built years ago, hung out with a bunch of guys firing off machine guns and drinking tea." Still, The Good Shepherd didn’t fulfill the CIA’s earnest hopes of being the CIA equivalent of Flags of Our Fathers (2006), which the Agency’s official historian says it should have been – all in the interests of what he calls a "culture of truth." Charlie Wilson’s War depicted the United States’ covert efforts to supply arms to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union in the 1980s which had the real-life consequence of America’s old ally turned against it in the form of al-Qaeda (as Crile explains in the book of the film). However, Beardon, who was the CIA agent who supplied the weapons, worked as consultant on the film and said prior to its release that it "will put aside the notion that because we did that, we had 9/11." CIA involvement in the film therefore appears to have paid dividends. The real reasons for the CIA adopting an "advisory" role on all of these productions are thrown into sharp relief by a solitary comment from former Associate General Counsel to the CIA, Paul Kelbaugh. In 2007, whilst at a College in Virginia, Kelbaugh delivered a lecture on the CIA’s relationship with Hollywood, at which a local journalist was present. The journalist (who now wishes to remain anonymous) wrote a review of the lecture which related Kelbaugh’s discussion of the 2003 thriller The Recruit, starring Al Pacino. The review noted that, according to Kelbaugh, a CIA agent was on set for the duration of the shoot under the guise of a consultant, but that his real job was to misdirect the filmmakers: "We didn’t want Hollywood getting too close to the truth," the journalist quoted Kelbaugh as saying. Peculiarly, in a strongly-worded email to the authors, Kelbaugh emphatically denied having made the public statement and claimed that he remembered "very specific discussions with senior [CIA] management that no one was ever to misrepresent to affect [film] content – EVER." The journalist considers Kelbaugh’s denial "weird," and told us that "after the story came out, he [Kelbaugh] emailed me and loved it… I think maybe it’s just that because [the lecture] was ‘just in Lynchburg’ he was okay with it – you know, like, no one in Lynchburg is really going to pay much attention to it, I guess. Maybe that’s why he said it, and maybe that’s why he’s denying it now." The journalist stands by the original report, and Kelbaugh has pointedly refused to engage us in further discussion on the matter. Early Screening Clandestine agencies have a long history of interference in the cinema industry. Letters discovered in the Eisenhower Presidential Library from the secret agent Luigi G. Luraschi (identified by British academic John Eldridge), the Paramount executive who worked for the CIA’s Psychological Strategy Board (PSB), reveal just how far the CIA was able to reach into the film industry in the early days of the Cold War, despite its claims that it sought no such influence. For instance, Luraschi reported that he had secured the agreement of several casting directors to subtly plant "well dressed negroes" into films, including "a dignified negro butler" who has lines "indicating he is a free man" in Sangaree (1953) and in a golf club scene in the Dean Martin/Jerry Lewis vehicle The Caddy (1953). Elsewhere, CIA arranged the removal of key scenes from the film Arrowhead (1953), which questioned America’s treatment of Apache Indians, including a sequence where a tribe is forcibly shipped and tagged by the US Army. Such changes were not part of a ham-fisted campaign to instill what we now call "political correctness" in the populace. Rather, they were specifically enacted to hamper the Soviets’ ability to exploit its enemy’s poor record in race relations and served to create a peculiarly anodyne impression of America, which was, at that time, still mired in an era of racial segregation. Other efforts were made. The PSB tried –unsuccessfully– to commission Frank Capra to direct Why We Fight the Cold War and to provide details to filmmakers about conditions in the USSR in the hope that they would use them in their movies. More successfully, in 1950, the CIA –along with other secretive organizations like the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) and aided by the PSB– bought the rights to and invested in the cartoon of George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1954), which was given an anti-Soviet spin to satisfy its covert investors. Author Daniel Leab has pointed to the fact it took decades for the rumours about CIA involvement in Animal Farm to be properly documented; this, he observes, "Speaks volumes about the ability of a government agency to keep its activities covert." Additionally, the production of the Michael Redgrave feature Nineteen-Eighty Four (1956) was in turn overseen by the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, which was supervised by the CIA. Key points in the movie were altered to demonise the Soviets. The CIA also tampered with the 1958 film version of The Quiet American, provoking the author, Graham Greene, to denounce the film. US Air Force Colonel Edward Lansdale, the CIA operative behind Operation Mongoose (the CIA sabotage and assassination campaign against Cuba) had entered into production correspondence with director Joseph L. Mankiewicz, who accepted his ideas. These included a change to the final scene in which we learn that Redgrave’s anti-hero has been hoodwinked by the Communists into murdering the suspicious American, who turns out not to be a bomb-maker as we had been led to believe, but instead a manufacturer of children’s toys. Behind the Scenes It would be a mistake to regard the CIA as unique in its involvement in Hollywood. The industry is in fact fundamentally open to manipulation by a range of state agencies. In 2000, it emerged that the White House’s drug war officers had spent tens of millions of dollars paying the major US networks to inject anti-drug plots into the scripts of primetime series such as ER, The Practice, Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Chicago Hope. Despite criticism for this blatant propagandizing, the government continued to employ this method of spreading its message on drugs. The White House went to Tinsel Town again the following year when, on November 11, 2001 a meeting was held in Hollywood between President Bush’s then Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, and representatives of each of the major Hollywood studios to discuss how the film industry might contribute to the ‘War on Terror.’ Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America said with a straight face that, "content was off the table", but Rove had clearly outlined a series of requests. It is hard to gauge the consequences of the meeting, but a Rambo sequel, for instance, was certainly discussed, and duly produced. Similarly, several series with national security themes emerged within a short time of the meeting including She Spies (2002-2004) and Threat Matrix (2003). The meeting was, in fact, just one in a series between Hollywood and the White House from October to December, 2001. On October 17, in response to 9/11, the White House announced the formation of its "Arts and Entertainment Task Force," and by November, Valenti had assumed leadership of Hollywood’s new role in the ‘War on Terror’. As a direct result of meetings, Congress sought advice from Hollywood insiders on how to shape an effective wartime message to America and to the world. In November 2001, John Romano, writer-producer of the popular US TV series Third Watch, advised the House International Relations Committee that the content of Hollywood productions was a key part of shaping foreign perceptions of America. On December 5, 2001, the powerful Academy of Television Arts & Sciences convened its own panel entitled "Hollywood Goes to War?" to discuss what the industry might do in response to 9/11. Representing the government at the meeting were Mark McKinnon, a White House advisor, and the Pentagon’s chief entertainment liaison, Phil Strub. Also in attendance, among others, were Jeff Zucker, President of NBC Entertainment, and Aaron Sorkin, creator and writer of the White House drama The West Wing (1999-2006). Immediately after, Sorkin and his team set about producing a special episode of the show dealing with a massive terrorist threat to America entitled "Isaac and Ishmael". The episode was given top priority and was successfully completed and aired within just ten days of the meeting. The product championed the superiority of American values whilst brimming with rage against the Islamist jihadists. The interlocking of Hollywood and national security apparatuses remains as tight as ever: ex-CIA agent Bob Baer told us, "There’s a symbiosis between the CIA and Hollywood" and revealed that former CIA director George Tenet is currently, "out in Hollywood, talking to studios." Baer’s claims are given weight by the Sun Valley meetings, annual get-togethers in Idaho’s Sun Valley in which several hundred of the biggest names in American media –including every major Hollywood studio executive– convene to discuss collective media strategy for the coming year. Against the idyllic backdrop of expansive golf courses, pine forests and clear fishing lakes, deals are struck, contracts are signed, and the face of the American media is quietly altered. The press has yet to be granted permission to report on these corporate media gatherings and so the exact nature of what is discussed at the events has never been publicly disclosed. It is known, however, that Tenet was keynote speaker at Sun Valley in 2003 (whilst still CIA head) and again in 2005. Conclusions Many would recoil at the thought of modern Hollywood cinema being used as a propagandist tool, but the facts seem to speak for themselves. Do agencies such as the CIA have the power, like the Pentagon, to affect movie content by providing much-sought-after expertise, locations and other benefits? Or are they able to affect script changes through simple persuasion, or even coercion? Do they continue to carry out covert actions in Hollywood as they did so extensively in the 1950s, and, beyond cinema, might covert government influence play some part in the creation of national security messages in TV series such as 24 and Alias (the star of the latter, Jennifer Garner, even made an unpaid recruitment video for the CIA)? The notion that covert agencies aspire to be more open is hard to take seriously when they provide such scant information about their role within the media, even regarding activities from decades past. The spy may have come in from the cold, but he continues to shelter in the shadows of the movie theatre. Matthew Alford (PhD: University of Bath) lectures on Film and Television at the University of Bristol and is currently writing a book about propaganda in Hollywood. Robbie Graham is Associate Lecturer in Media at Stafford College. They can be contacted at: matthewalfordphd@gmail.com and rbbgraham@aol.com respectively. References available on request.

Global Research Articles by Matthew Alford

Global Research Articles by Robbie Graham