Check out this new featurette from the film’s production team which shows how realistic “Valor” was in order to bring the Navy SEAL experience into the movie theater.

—–

“Act of Valor,” featuring active duty Navy SEALS, hits theaters Feb. 24.

Has Hollywood finally snapped out of their wicked anti-American streak thanks to profits, Obama being in office, or a little bit of both? It isn’t a moral awakening, that you can be sure of.

DHD:

Christopher McQuarrie will write, produce and direct Rubicon, a new property that is intended to be turned into a movie, graphic novel and videogame. McQuarrie is directing Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher in One Shot, but the project was announced at NY Comic-Con by coproducers Mark Long and Dan Capel. They describe the project as The Seven Samurai, set in Afghanistan with Navy SEALs as the heroes, and the Taliban the villains. Since Navy SEAL Team Six killed Osama Bin Laden, the SEALs have become the centerpiece of numerous feature films.

Full piece here.

Onetime stuntmen-turned-filmmakers Mike “Mouse” McCoy and Scott Waugh hope to recreate the real-life experience of Navy SEALs with extreme accuracy onscreen in Act of Valor, an upcoming war thriller that boasts a cast composed primarily of (appropriately) actual Navy SEALs.

—–

An official trailer has been released for Act of Valor – and while it doesn’t offer much insight into the film’s plot or characters, the footage on display certainly suggests this production will feature some of the more convincing battle sequences and practical tactical maneuvers (say that three times fast…) ever put to film.

Act of Valor originated as a military recruitment video before it was developed into a fully-realized fictional motion picture – one directed by McCoy and Waugh, based on a screenplay from Kurt Johnstad (300). Relativity Media acquired the screen rights to the project earlier this year.

Here’s an official description of the film:

‘Act of Valor’ follows a Navy SEAL squad on a covert mission to recover a kidnapped CIA agent, and in the process takes down a complex web of terrorist cells determined to strike America at all costs.

Please visit our friends at Screen Rant for full story.

It’s called “Here Comes Trouble” and (with his permission) the UK Guardian last week published an excerpt.

The Guardian extract focused on the period after Moore’s famous 2003 Oscar acceptance speech when he condemned the Iraq War and President George W Bush. According to Mr. Moore, this speech was thought of as “career suicide” and more alarmingly made him “the most hated man in America”.

Death threats followed and Mr. Moore decided to hire bodyguards – “nine ex-Navy Seals surrounding me, round-the-clock,” he writes in the book.

Then when he made the documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11″ – which was acutely critical of the Iraq invasion and the Bush administration – the bodyguards were really needed because the hate poured in.

As Mr. Moore relates in “Here Comes Trouble,” the hate was “generated toward me by the Republican pundits. It had the sad and tragic side-effect of unhinging the already slightly unglued. And so my life went from receiving scribbly little hate notes to full out attempted physical assaults – and worse.”

Mr. Moore outlines three attacks in particular to illustrate the level of violence he was enduring.

However, his accounts raise questions about these incidents and reasonable doubts if they happened as outlined.

Having doubts, I emailed his spokesperson a few detailed and pointed questions asking for times, dates, locations and police and medical reports that would normally be generated by such incidents.

In response, I received a somewhat defensive email from the Gavin de Becker the owner of Gavin de Becker & Associates, the security company Mr. Moore hired to protect him during this time.

“Security agents from my firm were present at all events and I can confirm the book’s account entirely. Each event occurred just as Mr. Moore described it,” said Mr. de Becker.

Notably missing from Mr. de Becker’s email were any of the details which I requested. These details would make it easier to independently verify Mr. Moore’s accounts of the alleged assaults.

One of the most serious and most public attacks was in Tennessee.

According to Mr. Moore:

“In Nashville, a man with a knife leapt up on the stage and started coming toward me. The Seal grabbed him from behind by his belt loop and collar and slung him off the front of the stage to the cement floor below. Someone had to mop up the blood after the Seals took him away.”

However, Officer Don Aaron of Nashville Police Public Affairs Department said there is no record of such an incident involving Mr. Moore occurring in the area.

Granted the details offered in “Here Comes Trouble” are vague but Officer Aaron said an extensive search of their database found 700 incidents involving a “Michael Moore” but none involved the filmmaker (either the wrong date of birth or incorrect middle name). And none of the incidents in the database involved an assailant trying to attack a Michael Moore with a knife.

And no detectives had any memory of such an armed attack on a public figure at a public event with the alleged assailant being seriously injured by Mr. Moore’s bodyguards.

It is possible the police were not called which would be very strange given that Mr. Moore was apparently being defended by professional bodyguards from a reputable company. It’s not unreasonable to expect that they would not report such a serious event to the police – even if it was just to protect them from litigation. After all, due to the reaction of an ex-Seal bodyguard, blood from the knife welding assailant had to be mopped up.

Mr. de Becker, the owner of the company which supplied the Seals, failed to provide details of the specific incidents described in “Here Comes Trouble” but did say:

“While thousands of people at these public appearances observed several of the security incidents involving Mr. Moore in 2004, few such incidents are ever documented in “police reports,” even though police are involved. “

Mr. de Becker said that “our protectors are trained to always hand off assaulters to police and/or venue security staff, and they did so in every instance described in the book.”

“Not surprisingly, police and/or venue security people virtually never make arrests for crimes that fall short of successful attack at public appearances. (my emphasis) There is no time, and typically, no inclination for police to conduct extensive assessments of people who failed in an attempt to harm or interfere with a public figure,” Mr. de Becker added.

However, it is difficult to accept that the police would not make an arrest in the Nashville attack. But strangest of all, a good faith search found no news reports of the Nashville incident. Michael Moore attracts hundreds and sometimes thousands of people to his public appearances and yet no journalist or blogger I could find reported this violent incident, or if they did notice it – failed to mention it in their reports.

Also, we are being asked to believe that no one in the audience photographed or recorded the attack on their phone and that even if they missed the initial incident no one even photographed or videoed the blood that had to be mopped up where the attacker fell.

Furthermore, Mr. de Becker’s response about arrests is even more bizarre given that other two incidents outlined by Mr. Moore did not “fall short of a successful attack.”

They involved a stabbing and second degree burns which required hospitalization.

Mr. Moore states that whilst holding a press conference in New York City, “outside one of the cinemas showing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′, a man walking by saw me, became inflamed, and pulled the only weapon he had on him out of his pocket – a very sharp and pointed graphite pencil.”

According to Mr. Moore, in a dramatic last minute move one of his bodyguards managed to put his hand “between me and the oncoming pencil. The pencil went right into the Seal’s hand.”

Again a serious incident but there is also a serious lack of corroboration. At the time of writing the New York Police Department have not responded to questions as to whether they have a record of the incident.

But more than any other of the incidents a police record of the event is perhaps unnecessary. The attack happened in the media capital of the world at a press conference given by a public figure who at the time was fronting the number-one movie in America and was the self-described “most hated man in America.”

But again, a good faith search did not find one newspaper, TV station, blogger or website in the most competitive media environment on the planet having ever mentioned or reported on the incident.

And the third incident mentioned in the book extract also has verification issues.

The filmmaker describes how in Fort Lauderdale, a man “in a nice suit” saw him on the sidewalk and “went crazy.”

Again Mr. Moore was saved because of the heroics of his ex-Navy Seal bodyguards:

“[The man] took the lid off his hot, scalding coffee and threw it at my face. The Seal saw this happening but did not have the extra half-second needed to grab the guy, so he put his own face in front of mine and took the hit.”

The alleged assault was the most serious of them all. According to Mr. Moore, on this occasion the Seal needed medical treatment.

“The coffee burned his face so badly, we had to take him to the hospital (he had second-degree burns) – but not before the Seal took the man face down to the pavement, placing his knee painfully in the man’s back, and putting him in cuffs,” the book states.

According to Fort Lauderdale Police Department there are no police records of this incident ever happening.

“Our electronic records go back to 2000 and nothing shows with an incident involving Mr. Moore,” a police spokesman said.

The spokesman even went the extra mile and asked the local media if they knew of such an event affecting such a prominent national figure.

“The local media said they had never heard of it,” he added.

One Fort Lauderdale detective added that Mr. Moore’s description of the incident read like “a fantasy novel.”

“It just doesn’t make sense in the real world. Real life assaults are much more messy than that. It sounds like an assault that took place not in the real world.”

Michael Moore has often been accused of having difficulties with the truth. Sometimes these criticisms are unfair because they attack his opinions rather than his facts.

But it is now clear that there are serious questions surrounding the assaults that he is supposed to have suffered. Apart from Mr. de Becker, who was a paid employee of Mr. Moore, there is no independent evidence that the assaults happened as Mr. Moore described.

Mr. de Becker. in a series of peculiar emails, that ranged from argumentative to joking, consistently stated that the filmmakers accounts were accurate. However, he also consistently declined to supply dates and locations for the incidents or details of police reports.

Mr. de Becker made vague claims that at least one of the incidents could be viewed online: “I’ve given you that YouTube hint several times; it would sure enlighten you on the specific topic you’re evaluating,” he said in an email.

However, he refused to provide a link to the particular YouTube video.

Perhaps the YouTube video does exist. Mr. Moore can clear up this matter very quickly by releasing the link. He could also explain why there are no reports of these violent assaults in the media (that I could find) even though two of them took place at a press conference and a public event. He should also hire new publicist – because their failure to release these records has led to unnecessary and unwelcome publicity.

Mr. Moore could also release medical records, suitably anonymized to protect the ex-Seals identities. He could tell us the date of each alleged assault and exact location – and the names of independent witnesses who were there.

And Mr. Moore could release copies of the relevant police reports and let us know what happened at subsequent court hearings – if there were any.

He could do this, but if he does not then there are serious questions about his honesty and reliability. Unless, of course, he wants to tell us that the disclaimer that opens his book is his explanation:

“This is a book of short stories based on events that took place in the early years of my life. Many of the names and circumstances have been changed to protect the innocent, and sometimes the guilty.”

Until then, there will be questions over the truth of his stories.

As a documentary filmmaker there is no worse fate.

“Here Comes Trouble” indeed.

Director Kathryn Bigelow with screenwriter Mark Boal

Screenwriter Mark Boal and director Kathryn Bigelow, those responsible for anti-war film The Hurt Locker, have decided to assist President Obama in his re-election. Together, they have been granted unprecedented access to some of America’s most classified data pertaining the death of Osama Bin Laden and the dark secretive world of our U.S. Navy SEAL’s and Joint Special Operations Command. They will be using this information to create a film about the “heroic leadership” within this administration based upon the U.S. led Navy SEAL kill mission which inevitably made OBL fish food.

It wouldn’t be surprising at all to see anti-war actors like Sean Penn, George Clooney, or Matt Damon partake with leading roles.

Sony Pictures is behind this madness and the same politicians who so tirelessly have gone out of their way to prosecute CIA and military interrogators are supporting them. With an S&P rating lower than any president, Obama needs all the help he can get for re-election.

Timing is everything. The release of this film is scheduled to open October 12th. October leaves just enough time to socially condition a grave amount of Americans in believing President Obama is truly the “chosen one.”

The President just addressed the nation on August 8th where he expressed sincere condolences for the loss of 31 Special Operators this past weekend in Afghanistan. His words, like normal, never add up to his actions. He has failed to disrupt Hollywood’s new film as he fully understands what type of push this could provide during such troubling times under his Presidency.

The shallowness of Washington and Hollywood combined is unfathomable. 31 lives have just been lost, 31 families shattered, and 31 new graves will be dug, yet some elitists would love to capitalize on their lives all for their own agendas.

As a combat disabled veteran, I am outraged. These were my brothers in arms– your sons, nephews, teammates, and our nation’s truest of heroes. With $50-75 million used to create and market this film, this money should be construed as fraud, waste, and abuse.

No matter the cost, I for one will be protesting this film.

Ladies and gentlemen, for this evening’s entertainment, quotes from Mr. Michael Moore:

1. It’s one thing to be happy that a criminal has been captured and dealt with. It’s another thing to throw a kegger celebrating his death at the site where the remains of his victims are still occasionally found. Is that who we are? Is that what Jesus would do?

2. There was no bloodlust euphoria on the day Timothy McVeigh was executed. We were silent. The families of the Oklahoma City dead were silent, relieved. What is the difference between McVeigh and bin Laden, other than the number they slaughtered? I wonder.

3. [T]he Taliban are Afghan citizens, not an invading force, and, for better or worse, they seem to enjoy the support of many of the common people throughout Afghanistan.

4. I hire only ex-SEALs and ex-Special Forces guys to handle my own security (I’ll let you pause a moment to appreciate that irony).

5. I know a lot of people see no need for a trial for these bad guys (just hang ‘em from the nearest tree!), and think trials are for sissies. “They’re guilty, off with their heads!” Well, you see, that is the exact description of the Taliban/al Qaeda/Nazi justice system.

6. [Osama] was a multimillionaire crime boss (using religion as his cover)[.] … He had people killed under the guise of religion, and not many in the media bothered to explain that every time Osama referenced Islam, he wasn’t really quoting Islam. Just because Osama said he was a “Muslim” didn’t make it so.

7. Yet, we began to fear Muslims and round them up.

8. We profiled people from Muslim nations at airports. We didn’t profile multi-millionaires (in fact, they now have their own fast-track line to easily get through security, an oddity considering every murderer on 9/11 flew in first class).

9. We did exactly what bin Laden said he wanted us to do: Give up our freedoms (like the freedom to be assumed innocent until proven guilty), engage our military in Muslim countries so that we will be hated by Muslims, and wipe ourselves out financially in doing so.

10. A killer of 4,000 (counting the African embassies and USS Cole bombings) got double-tapped in his pajamas. Assuming it was possible to take him alive, I think his victims, the future, and the restoration of the American Way deserved better. That’s all I’m saying.

No doubt, bin Laden’s victims appreciate Mr. Moore speaking on their behalf.

But you also gotta give credit to Debra Burlingame, sister of one of the victims of 9/11, who used her chance to meet President Obama yesterday to gently prod him over the indictments of CIA interrogators.

Remember, CIA Director Leon Panetta admits that the initial info that led to finding bin Laden came, in part, from “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on detainees.

So why then, the prosecution? Well, Debra noted the irony, and asked the Prez to press Erik Holder to end them.

Obama said he wouldn’t.

Which is poop.

To me, prosecuting CIA agents after bin Laden’s death is like the Packers trading Aaron Rodgers to the Panthers after winning the Superbowl.

That’s not exactly like going to prison, but it is the Panthers.

(And yes, I made a sports metaphor. I do know my baseball)

Anyway, if the Justice Department had half a brain, they’d stop harassing the folks who just upped Obama’s approval rating. And Obama should focus on Holder himself, who seems to harbor bitterness against anyone who works in some capacity protecting our country.

I mean, I suppose waterboarding’s bad, but I guess it would be fine in front of a voting booth.

Anyway, the President wisely credited the CIA’s role in killing bin Laden, and added we may never know the names of those agents – due to the nature of the work.

That’s wrong.

If you prosecute them, you’ll know who the heroes are.

They’ll be behind bars.

And if you disagree with me, you sir are worse than Hitler.

Tonight:

Joe DeRosa!

Dana Vachon!

Elise Jordan!

—–

Superman was created by the sons of Jewish immigrants – Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, and they had a love for America.

When I was growing up as a kid on Long Island, we couldn’t wait to see
the next episode of Superman on TV or get the latest comic. I wanted a Superman costume for Halloween. I proudly wore my red cape and believed I was fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. So did most of my friends. Years later, my two sons – years apart – alsowanted to be the Man of Steel for Halloween.

This may no longer appeal to the bright eyed youth of America. Never will Superman be part of the lexicon for American pop culture. DC Comics, for whatever reason, turned its back on America. Will Superman now fight for Sharia Law to be adopted into England, France, and Germany? This act shows more than anything else the depth that a socialistic based education system has indoctrinated minds and created a cultural battleground for the soul of America.

Who came up with this idea? I would love to know the background of who made this decision? I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the meeting that took place at DC Comics when they agreed to make Superman denounce America. Was it economics? “Let’s make the Man of Steel reject America and we can sell more comics in Turkey, China, North Korea, Iran, Ireland, England, Germany.” What made them do it? Is it because a directive has been given from unseen forces to advance a global agenda? Why not just create a whole new character? Globalman. The Adventures of Globalman. Imagine an iconic comic figure from another country denouncing their adopted country? Who owns DC comics? Who are the major stockholders?

The arrogant cleverness behind this decision is one of the biggest cultural attacks on America. This seemingly minor act is MONUMENTAL. America is an ideal – “that shining city on a hill, the last best hope of mankind.” There is nothing wrong with America. Sometimes the men we put in office let her down, but inevitably she corrects herself, because of all of US. And it is this ideal that Superman has protected, even from the United Nations.

Did Jor-El send his son to Pakistan or Cuba? No, AMERICA. Like the early pilgrims in search of FREEDOM, a small spacecraft sent Kal-El to America, land of the free and home of the brave. For over seventy years, Clark Kent/Superman has been a proud American. Superman didn’t denounce America; He has been kidnapped, hijacked, and it’s time to send the Navy SEALS in to get him back. Or better yet, let’s denounce Superman. The new Men of Steel are Navy SEALS and the all those who serve and protect the American Way. I’m sure some will say, “What’s the big deal?” or “You’re overreacting.” Well, in the 900th comic of Superman, he was killed – not by Kyptonite, but by pen and ink.

—–

In closing, take a moment to watch the above Youtube clip. If you don’t have much time, skip ahead and start watching at around 6:30 in. Forward the link to friends. Download the clip to your phone and play it for people. Now more than ever, these words are very significant.

For openers, we have the administration’s refusal to let White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers explain how the Salahis crashed the state dinner for India’s prime minister, Dr. Monmohan Singh.  These are the same folks who spent eight years insisting that the American people had a right to receive regular status reports on Dick Cheney’s bowel movements.

For my part, I am less concerned with the presence of the Salahis in the White House than with Rahm Emanuel, Cass Sunstein and David Axelrod, having the run of the place.

I happen to approve of Obama’s demanding that Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai eliminate the rampant corruption of his administration.  Likewise, I approve of Karzai’s insistence that President Obama do the same.

I don’t suppose that anyone was terribly surprised when Chris Matthews, the man who’s given hope to lispers everywhere, referred to West Point as the enemy camp when Obama used the venue and its cadets as stage scenery for his recent noodle-rattling speech.

Many people gave the president kudos for aggravating his liberal base by committing 30,000 additional troops to the war in Afghanistan.  Perhaps I would have added a few of my own if he hadn’t used the occasion to voice his opposition to the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, basically spitting in the eye of those gallant men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in those distant lands.

It says something about the loyalty and discipline of the cadets in the audience — at least those who managed to stay awake — that they gave the goofus-in-chief a polite round of applause at the conclusion of his asinine remarks.

Inasmuch as Obama, as usual, provided the enemy with an end date for America’s commitment, one could hardly describe his speech as a call to arms.  It was more a call to disarmament.  I suspect that, based on his record, whenever Malia or Sasha misbehaves, punishment consists of being sentenced to time-outs in their palatial bedrooms.  At the very least, I’d make them listen to an hour’s worth of Joe Biden’s most memorable orations.

What more needs to be said about the current administration than that Obama takes every opportunity to insult America; that he curtsies to the Saudis and the Chinese and pays his profound respects to Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; all the while, back-stabbing Poland, Israel and Czechoslovakia?

And, then, for good measure, he allows three Navy SEALs to face prosecution for bitch-slapping an Islamic terrorist.

Is it really any wonder that I wish it had been the Obamas who’d been caught sneaking into President Salahi’s gala event?

“A revolution principle certainly is, and certainly should be taught as a principle of the Constitution of the United States, and of every State in the Union.” — James Wilson, Scottish lawyer, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a major force in the drafting of the Constitution, a leading legal theoretician and one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Each time July 4th rolls around, whoever lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue makes speeches celebrating American freedom and some other stuff like baseball and apple pie. But the guy at that address never gets down to lauding what the 4th of July is really all about: It’s a celebration of violence to achieve what most would agree was a just political end.

Yes, that political end was the achievement of independence from what America’s mostly British-born founders considered English tyranny by its German king and Parliament. But let’s have an honesty moment: I seriously doubt many today would consider the British rule that so angered our Founding Fathers anything to fight about. I mean, didn’t Screen Actors Guild members recently vote some fellow thespians onto the SAG Board of Directors who believe in taxation without representation?

That was a platform plank Marcia Wallace, Bob Newhart’s TV-shrink office receptionist, pitched to me on the Director’s Guild steps when she was running for a SAG Hollywood board slot. Her idea and that of some others who got elected last go ’round is to bar actors who don’t make a certain amount of money from voting in SAG elections and on union issues while, at the same time, forcing them to pay dues and be SAG members if they want to work. Is there any real difference between that scheme and the plight of the colonists who had to pay taxes levied in London even though they had no representation in Parliament? Maybe Wallace and those who voted for her should share some time on Bob’s cognitive dissonance couch with Mr. Carlin.

Talk about violence.

Anyway, when violence is used for the reason George Washington and Baron von Gekko used it, violence, for lack of a better word, is good. Violence is right, violence works. Violence clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

But the man in the White House right now doesn’t believe in violence for just cause. He gave the order for the Navy SEALS to shoot the Somali pirates to save the American ship captain they were holding hostage, you say? No. My military sources say he equivocated and the SEALS took the initiative themselves just as they are trained to do. He boldly sent the USS John McCain to intercept that North Korean ship believed to be carrying ballistic missiles for Iran? No, my military sources say top Pentagon brass leaned on him behind closed doors until he acted. Against that record, his deployment of additional troops in Afghanistan appears to be an aberration.

I believe the real view of the man currently living in our presidential mansion was stated quite clearly last month while positioned in his classic Mussoliniesque uplifted chin, quarter shot pose: “Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.” The Borg could not have said it better. But why stop there? Our president then compounded the intellectual insult: “For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding.”

Those ideals embodied as rights in the American Constitution include equality before the law, rights of due process against the power of the state and the right to be left alone by the minions of government. But the paramount right is at all times the right to use violence against a government that violates those and other fundamental portions of its contract with the people — aka: the Constitution — when all lawful and peaceable remedies have failed. To say “it was not violence that won full and equal rights” may be literally true in the sense they were not won at the point of a gun, but the statement perpetuates a highly misleading myth about passive resistance in general.

The non-violence of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King are shibboleths among the urban elite and academic classes for the only moral way to challenge oppression and injustice. Fortunately, George Orwell understood the brutal reality of that game even if his fellow intellectuals didn’t: “Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.”

Gandhi’s and King’s non-violence only worked because they were not facing a Stalin or a Saddam or a Hitler or a Mao or a … Peaceful protest against those and like regimes is a guarantee of becoming worm food. Fact is, Gandhi and King protested the unjustness they saw within a fundamentally just system constructed by those aforementioned dead guys from Britain, and they didn’t just pull those principles out of their rear ends.

Those principles we take for granted that permit a balance between the sovereignty of the individual and that of the state we take are the accrued wisdom of centuries within an Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Viking alloy of cultures that valued personal freedom and its legitimate limits within the group that protected that freedom. Ya know, “The strength of the pack is the wolf and the strength of the wolf is the pack,” as Rudyard Kipling put it. There are other ways of being akin to the beehive, but if individuals want to remain individuals, the occasional sting of violence or its threat is the only thing that prevents it.