[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Activism See other Activism Articles Title: Hollywood celebrities caught on hidden camera accepting money from "Middle Eastern oil interests" James O'Keefe Premieres "Expose: Hollywood's War on US Energy" at Cannes Hollywood celebrities caught on hidden camera accepting money from "Middle Eastern oil interests" CANNES -- In a blockbuster new video, Project Veritas has exposed the truth about the dark funding behind Hollywood's anti-fracking messaging machine. New York Times Bestselling Author and Project Veritas founder and president James O'Keefe debuted the latest investigation at a "premiere" in Cannes, France on Wednesday. In the investigation, an undercover journalist from Project Veritas posed as a member of a Middle Eastern oil dynasty and offered $9 million in funding to American filmmakers to fund an anti-fracking movie. In video from a meeting with Ed Begley Jr., Mariel Hemingway and Josh Tickell, a Project Veritas investigator disguised as "Muhammed" offered $9 million for an anti-fracking film. "Muhammad" clearly states: "If Washington DC continues fracking, America will be energy efficient, and then they won't need my oil anymore." In the same conversation, Begley and Hemingway accept the funding and agree to hide the source of funds for the anti-fracking movie. Hemingway agreeing that those who will know the source of the funding are "only at this table." Ed Begley Jr. is an outspoken environmental activist and current Governor on the board of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science (the organization that brings us the OSCARS every year.) Mariel Hemingway is a Golden Globe- and Oscar-nominated actress. Josh Tickell is a Sundance Film Festival Winner and the director of environmental message movies "Fuel", "The Big Fix" and "PUMP". Team Begley even submitted a video of Oscar-nominated actor Mark Ruffalo offering his unwavering support for the fictitious anti-fracking film project. The meeting came about after a series of discussions with Josh and Rebecca Tickell. A Project Veritas journalist posed as an ad executive seeking to broker a deal for his client ("Muhammed") to fund an American-made anti-fracking film. In a phone call to Tickell, the ad executive states: "My client's interest is to end American energy independence; your interest is to end fracking. And you guys understand that?" Tickell's response: "Correct. Yes, super clear." Tickell makes it clear on the tape that revealing the source of funding for an activist film can undermine its credibility. Tickell notes that the movie "Promised Land" undermined its own message because it was labeled as being funded by Image Nation Abu Dhabi. His advice: "So rather than putting that [the source of funding] up front, don't mention that." In a follow-up call with Josh and Rebecca Tickell, Rebecca Tickell assures our investigator: "We would never tell about where the funding is coming from. That would be really awkward for us." Josh Tickell: "We're confident that we can keep this zip locked, you know tight, air-tight forever. If we don't protect who is kind of funding this thing, if we have to disclose that or that becomes a necessary part of it, the whole enterprise will not work." Project Veritas founder and president James O'Keefe stated Wednesday: "This latest investigation shows the dark side of Hollywood's environmental movement. Hollywood is willing to take and conceal money from Middle Eastern oil interests in order to advance their cause of destroying American energy independence." Poster Comment: Hollywood Whores, HAHAHAHAHA!!1 Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
This doesn't prove fracking is safe, of course. To the contrary, I'd ask if the journalist behind this setup had a pro-US big Oil financial interest in fracking. And if you were going to make a movie for a cause you truly believed in, and someone offered to help fund it to the tune of $millions because they had the same interest but due to a totally different motive, but set a condition of secrecy, would you turn it down, knowing it would harm the very cause *you* truly believe in? Speaking for myself, I'd have to at least think about it a while.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||