Read 'War is a Racket' by Gen Smedley Butler, USMC for information about corporate uses
of the military.

or read "The Grunch of Giants" by Richard Buckminster Fuller -- and thanks for your (very rare) dissenting review of the Deception, but let me add that you haven't really debunked, you have only just dismissed it on the weirdest of grounds (because you don't like the source) and I find that to be very interesting among, so far, all of the blogs critical of this film. Not one tries to deconstruct the argument and illustrate the so-called 'fake' conclusions by providing better data and better conclusions.

And in the meantime I'm seeing a lot of people being swayed by this film the way UFO fanboys loved The X-Files; if there is any truth in this movie, then again, because they dismiss it on principle those that (if it is true) really should see the film will not even look at it.

I find that interesting. Were I a real conspiracy nut, I might think it was the Deceptors themselves who made this film to cover-up their nasty deeds simply put putting them out in the open with just the right nut-job narrator.

Here is one counter argument, although I do not know that it is true: while disturbing by itself that so many top advisors are Wall Street Insiders (who didn't know AIG pays bonusses??), that they are ALL members of the film's Triad of Evil orgs is not a surprise: The Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations are groups with nearly identical interests and scope, so it stands to reason those on one would seek to be on the other, and there being, thanks to corporate agglomeration, not that many Super Rich in America, that all of these members should also attend a party of the 150 most rich and influential people is about as surprising as all the geeks in a small town visiting the one and only computer store.

but ... what's all this about Henry Kissenger and Obama? I didn't follow what the film was trying to say there.

here's some factual bits, which, admittedly, are rare through the film:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act "It is believed that the repeal of this act contributed to the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009." although that is a big leap from it being pre-mediated revolution.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/1 "no empire can survive being rendered a permanent laughingstock, which is what happened as of a few weeks ago, when the buffoons who have been running things in this country finally went one step too far" is typical Rolling Stone, but harder than OD to dismiss outright.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/house-readies-passage-volunteerism-critics-pricey-forced-service/ "legislation will expand the1993 AmeriCorps program to match the renewed interest in national service since President Obama's election" which again is alarming, but no where near what the scaremongers paint.

Mr.G, Thanks for taking the time to read my posting. I was not trying to debunk this film. My posting is more of my opinion of it. I could not swallow most of what was said in it. I did find it to be falsely advertised. In its name it says Obama.However the majority of it I found to be directed at Bush , his father along with more on the republican ticket then on the liberal side of things. I find it laughable that the claim of finacial backing "ILLUMINATI" yet they failed to mention George Sorros among these. I personally would have found it more believable if they had come with the angle that Sorros was behind most of Obama's making and the fall of the markets. It is fact that Sorros has caused the fall of the Asian market in the past and that he has called for a withdrawl of monies from the American market just prior to its downward trend.

Despite this I do not see a secretive society behind things. I do see perhaps a well orchastrated group of liberals in office and elsewhere pulling the public strings and attempting to end run the Constitution.

There are many things in play today and the dots can be connected in various ways. Only time will tell but it is all rather facinating, and some what scary.

I think I'm with you all the way on this one: Far from any Illuminati I prefer the saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence" and in there the Rolling Stone article really sums it up wonderfully.

Which is not to say that power brokers would not seize the opportunity, but it is to say that I really don't think any of them have the wherewithall to have orchestrated this according to any master plan. That's why the 9/11 pilots were not Iraqis or Afghans, yet once they'd lucked out and done the thing, it then became all too easy to blame the desired targets.

Just replying to your opening paragraph about obama not having the credentials to be president. I think graduating at the top of Harvard Law qualifies. You are a right wing retard. By the way, how did president Bush have these credentials you talk about. Also if you want to see Bush at his best, just google Bush on Blackwater in youtube. Its 1:42 long. It pretty much sums up the last 8 years.

Dassem, if you have an opinion, stating it is sufficient; there's no need for ad hominem attacks, and thanks for that Blackwater ref.

As for qualifications, I'm not a Yank so I don't know, but I was under the impression the whole purpose of the presidency was to give supreme executive power to an 'ordinary' citizen; it is not an election for the CEO of America, it is an election for the Chair of the Board of Directors. Further to that idea, mind you, the latest Fast Company infographic wants to tell us that a Harvard or Yale credential really isn't was all so FAB as you might expect.

That said, Socrates said that the mastery of philosophy should be the minimum qualification for any politician. Socrates was next asked if that was so, then why did he himself not run for office? "Because I know nothing about being a politician," was his reply.