Was that a memorial service a or a pep rally?

Was that a memorial service a or a pep rally?

Doug Lucas


Well, the cult members were out in full force tonight in
Arizona. I was ashamed and disgusted by the spectacle that was called a memorial

President Obama’s speech was fine, as always. He read the
teleprompter with eloquence and did a fine chin in the air impersonation of Che
Guevara, as usual. His words were appropriate for the most part and he rose
above the political fray by making a point of chiding people that were playing
the blame game.

My beef is not with Obama this time. It is his mindless
minions in the crowd that draws my ire. Apparently the crowd was mainly composed
of university students and from what I could gather they had already started
tapping kegs for the wake.

This was more like an Arsenio Hall show than a
memorial service. Catcalls, standing ovations, whistling and the whoop, whoop,
whoop of the crowd dominated the night. What should have been a somber occasion
for reflection turned into another Obama pep rally. It was as if these students
had their guy up on stage and by God they weren’t about to let a national
tragedy get in the way of them having a good time and cheering on their

If these kids are our future then we are well and truly

Contributor Patricia McCarthy adds:

I’ve just watched the
“memorial” service for those killed and wounded in Tucson. How are we to explain
the lack of decorum and reverence displayed by that audience? Did those students
forget that the families of the dead and wounded were in the room? Do they not
understand the meaning of the word “murdered”? Is not everyone who watched
horrified by the whistling, hooting cheerfulness of that crowd?

audience turned what was to be a memorial into something between a campaign
rally and a rock concert. They should all be ashamed of themselves. The event
called for honor and quiet respect, not hooting and hollering for a celebrity.
Perhaps it was the free t-shirts that set the tone.

Authors Credit:
Doug can be reached at hammer2141@yahoo.com

Printed from:

at January 13, 2011 – 09:22:51 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Teacher Deems Student’s American Flag Drawing ‘Offensive’–but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama

Fox News Radio: The battle over the American flag has reached a middle school art class in California’s Santa Rita School District where a student was told not to draw Old Glory because it was “offensive,” but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama.


Dressing Up Standards, Dumbing Down Schools

Dressing Up Standards, Dumbing Down Schools

Posted By Terrence Moore On April 4, 2010 @ 12:23 pm In Culture, Education | 87 Comments

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, Homer teaches us, something every school child used to know. Beware of politicians and expert educators bearing standards, the last seventy years or more of Progressive education should have taught us. But we are slow to learn.


We have been given almost a month to digest the hundreds of pages of the new National Governors Association’s Common Core State Standards that could well become national standards pressed in some way upon every child who attends a public school in America. So we had better read, write, and think fast. Pundits and educationists, even some stalwarts of education reform, are beginning to praise these new standards as being more comprehensive than any before, far better than what the diverse and unreliable states are providing. Schools will now be held accountable to “higher standards”; teachers will know what they are responsible for teaching; students will be swept up in “the vision of what it means to be a literate person in the twenty-first century,” which, we must surmise, is very different from what it meant to be literate in, say, the eighteenth century, when the likes of Thomas Jefferson read Latin and Greek for fun. It all sounds wonderful. At least it does until sensible people realize that these standards, which are only the best of the worst of the existing state standards, have absolutely nothing to do with sound education. It will be a mistake to get bogged down in a discussion of whether these standards are better than the various state standards since the whole enterprise is just a diversion hiding what truly ails public schools. The reason is obvious to anyone who has ever listened to some of these so-called experts drone on about standards without ever making a literary reference or drawing a lesson from history or even talking about a book.

Let us imagine an author at his craft, say, Herman Melville while writing Moby Dick, or Jane Austen working on Pride and Prejudice. Now assuredly what these literary artists hoped above all else was that a century or two from their own time students in high schools would be using their great works not better to understand love or honor or revenge or nobility or happiness, but to “analyze how multiple themes or central ideas in a text interact, build on, and, in some cases, conflict with one another”; as well as to “analyze the impact of the author’s choices regarding how to develop and relate elements of a story or drama (e.g., where a story is set, how the action is ordered, how the characters are introduced and developed).” We know that this sort of innocuous thing is what the authors had in mind because that is what our teachers told us in school. We remember the drill: the plot graphs—rising action, climax, falling action (or denouement)—the cast lists of main characters and outlines of “main ideas,” the possible literary techniques—foreshadowing, alliteration, onomatopoeia. What we do not remember is one dad-gum thing about these stories: what insight they gave us into the human condition, what they portray as heroism, villainy, love, or self-deception. We do not remember any of these life-ennobling themes because those matters never came up in our English (what are now called our “Language Arts”) classes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Read what some kids are taking home from school.

Poison Ivy (League)

It’s a Bad World

It’s a Bad World

By Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/9/2008

Here are some news items from just this past week:

In Tibet, according to an Associated Press report, “police opened fire on hundreds of Buddhist monks and lay people who had marched on local government offices to demand the release of two monks detained for possessing photographs of the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled Buddhist leader.” At least eight died.

In Iraq, the mass murder of civilians continues while American and Iraqi government forces continue to battle murderous Shiite gangs known as militias. And a 40-year-old Assyrian Orthodox priest was killed in a drive-by shooting in Baghdad in the latest attack against Iraq’s Christian minority.

In Zimbabwe, one of the world’s longest-reigning tyrants, Robert Mugabe, began to violently annul the latest elections. He has virtually destroyed a once thriving country. Unemployment is 80 percent. Inflation is over 100,000 percent. The Zimbabwean dollar has been trading at a rate of 55 million for one U.S. dollar. And life expectancy has gone from 60 to 35.

In Woodbridge, Va., moronic officials at an elementary school called in police to arrest a 6-year-old boy for slapping a 6-year-old on her bottom. He has now been labeled a sex offender for life. And he is hardly alone among elementary school students. As reported in the Washington Post: “The Virginia Department of Education reported that 255 elementary students were suspended last year for offensive sexual touching, or ‘improper physical contact against a student.’ In Maryland, 166 elementary school children were suspended last year for sexual harassment, including three preschoolers, 16 kindergartners and 22 first-graders, according to the State Department of Education.”

In Pakistan, more than 25,000 people rallied against “Fitna,” an anti-Quran film made by Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament. Speakers called on Muslims to kill themselves and others in defense of Islam’s honor.

Human Rights Watch released a report that the government of Sudan “is giving [Sudanese Arab gangs] a license to rape” black women and girls in Darfur.

In Sri Lanka, the Associated Press reported, “A suicide bomber killed 14 people at an opening ceremony for a Sri Lankan marathon. … More than 90 others were wounded.”

In Israel, Haaretz reported that an Arab woman has been shot in an attempted honor killing. She was to be the ninth female member of her family to be killed. “Eight women from this family were murdered in the past six years, all in connection with ‘family honor.'” Male relatives had murdered them all because they brought shame on their Muslim family by not marrying the men picked for them or otherwise disobeying family religious dictates.

These are only the news items of the last seven days. I purposely chose a period without dramatic headlines. And, of course, no news came out of North Korea, which continues to be the world’s largest concentration camp. Cubans continue to have no freedom. Iranians continue to be whipped and killed for sexual improprieties. Saudi women continue to be forced to be invisible in public and live a demeaned status.

The world is filled with evil. Always has been. The biggest difference today is that, thanks to communications, we are far more aware of much of it.

I am convinced that human evil is so great that most people choose either to ignore it or to focus their concerns elsewhere – like those who believe that human-created carbon dioxide emission, not human evil, poses the greatest threat to mankind. No one will ever get killed for fighting global warming. Fighting evil, on the other hand, is quite dangerous.


Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently “Happiness is a Serious Problem” (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Democide: Democrats and the Awful Truth of Genocide

Democide: Democrats and the Awful Truth of


By J.R. Dunn

Since the first of the year, I’ve been working on a project dealing with the connections between liberal policies and mass mortality – the easily demonstrated (though somehow  never mentioned) fact that, since at least the 1950s, liberal policies taken to their logical conclusion tend to create large piles of bodies in a process that might be called mass negligent homicide. (The technical term for this, one that I don’t care for, is “morticide”.)

This project involves a considerable amount of research into several distinct events in recent American history – domestic crime and justice, the Vietnam War and its aftermath, Rachel Carson and DDT. One of the pleasures of any form of deep research is the surprises hiding in the material. For instance, in this case, the discovery that Rachel Carson is not, as a number of observers claim, directly responsible for the DDT ban – the credit for that and all the deaths that followed, goes to a grim cabal of assorted bureaucrats. Or the fact that William Shawcross, a British left-wing journalist whom I had dismissed as a diehard America-hater, has in recent years rethought his position in much the same sense as and far more consistently than Christopher Hitchens.
Occasionally, you come across something more disturbing, some collection of facts that takes shape out of the material and presents itself as something bizarre, inexplicable, and utterly out of context, but at the same time impossible to refute.
I call them “wild cards”. You don’t go looking for wild cards – by definition, there’s no way you can know that they’re there. They have to come to you. You examine a particular data set, a collection of documents, a study, and suddenly something jumps out at you. Something skewed and strange, something nobody had seen before and that you never expected to see. Something that gives rise to the eureka response – but with a twist: I have found it, but what the hell is it I’ve found?
With the exception of physics, wild cards are far from welcome in most fields. Establishments like stability and consistency, and wild cards are the enemy of both. Physics, the single great exception, began the 20th century with two of the most consequential wild cards of all time, Planck’s identification of the quanta in 1900 and Einstein’s Special Relativity in 1905. Physicists soon got used to wild cards leaping out at them almost constantly, proving that you can get used to them if you have no choice.
In any case, the card I was dealt this time went like this:
Almost all the large-scale genocides of the past century have occurred during Democratic administrations.
Below appears a list of major genocides and democides (a word coined by the master scholar of mass killing, Prof. R.J. Rummel, and meaning any mass murder by government)  occurring during the 20th century from the 1930s on. Each of them accounted for something on the order of a million lives, several of them many more. The approximate number is followed by the date and the name and party of the U.S. president at the time.

Ukrainian Famine 1.5 – 7 million 1932 -1933 FDR — Democrat
Rape of Nanking 1 million 1937 FDR — Democrat
Great Purge Up to 10 million 1937 – 1939 FDR — Democrat
The Holocaust 6 million Jews (+ 5 million others) 1942 – 1945 FDR — Democrat
Operation Keelhaul 600,000 to 2 million 1945 – 1946 Truman — Democrat
Postwar Purge 1 million + 1946 – 1948 Truman — Democrat
Great Leap


Up to 45 million 1959 – 1962 Eisenhower — Republican
Great Cultural Revolution 1 – 10 million 1967 – 1969 LBJ — Democrat
Biafran Crisis 1 million + 1966 – 1969 LBJ — Democrat
Cambodian Year Zero 2 million + 1975 – 1978 Carter – Democrat
Boat People 200,000 – 1 million 1977 – Carter – Democrat
Ethiopian Famine 1 million + 1984 – 1985 Reagan – Republican
Rwandan Massacre 800,000 1994 Clinton – Democrat

Out of thirteen of these atrocities, no fewer than eleven occurred during the administrations of Democratic presidents. In fact, partially excepting John F. Kennedy, there’s no Democratic president following Franklin D. Roosevelt whose term was not marred by at least one massive foreign bloodletting. In contrast, Republican administrations feature only two: Mao’s Great Leap Forward, in which a nationwide artificial famine wracked China from one end to the other, and the Ethiopian famine, an almost identical episode that struck the ancient African kingdom in the mid-80s.
Darfur — which straddles both the Clinton and Bush administrations — may well make this list in due time, but has yet to reach the level of enormity of the atrocities listed. This is not to slight the magnitude of the human suffering involved. Darfur is an indictment of the international system as it currently exists. It could, and should, be rectified beginning tomorrow.)
Qualifications must be made in only two cases: while the Ukrainian famine began in 1932, grain seizures started in late Fall, almost simultaneous with Roosevelt’s election. And while the Cambodian Year Zero massacres began during Gerald Ford’s term in 1975, Ford was a caretaker president effectively overseeing a government controlled by a Democratic Congress. Jimmy Carter’s first full year as president coincides with the peak frenzy of the massacres. (While it’s true that the boat people continued arriving into the 1980s, the Reagan Administration defused the crisis by allowing several hundred thousand into the U.S. as refugees.)
Another set of qualifications, having no effect on the premise itself, has to do with numbers. Most of the mortality figures are ranges, many of them no more than estimates, and that they will remain. Few of the killers were as meticulous in their record-keeping as the Nazis were with the Endlosung. That said, some of the estimates, such as that of the Ukrainian Famine from Robert Conquest’s The Harvest of Sorrow, and the Great Leap Forward from Jasper Becker’s Hungry Ghosts. Mao’s Secret Famine, are very solid. The figure for the rape of Nanking also includes the other massacres in the Yangtze valley during 1937, as derived from Iris Chang’s The Rape of Nanking.
Another troubling point is that in most cases, very little was done in response to the crises. Many of the episodes, as we’ve grown used to seeing, are accompanied by open denial or an almost willful refusal to admit that any such thing is happening. Denial is usually the product of individuals or groups sympathizing with or aiding the killers – the Communist Party during the 1930s, the New Left following the Vietnam War. Unwillingness to believe, though much more common, is not often a product of evil intent, but simply an inability to acknowledge that horror on such a scale is possible. (This is best illustrated by Justice Felix Frankfurter’s response to an eyewitness of the Holocaust in 1943: “I cannot believe you. I’m not saying that you’re lying. But that I cannot believe you.”) While understandable, this remains a human failing and needs to be faced as such.
Because the result is paralysis or hesitation in confronting such events. While only one was carried out with the full cooperation of Western governments (Operation Keelhaul, the forced repatriation of Russian collaborators, prisoners, and expatriates at the close of WW II. Cooperation was compelled by the text of the Yalta Treaty.), a much larger number occurred with no intervention or often even comment by the civilized world. These include the Ukrainian Famine, the Rape of Nanking, the Great Purge, the Holocaust, the Soviet Postwar Purge, the Cultural Revolution, the Year Zero, the first three years of the boat people’s exodus, the Rwandan Massacre, and is now being repeated in Darfur. Only two exceptions exist in which the killings were matched by an extensive rescue effort – the Biafran civil war and the Ethiopian Famine.
The correlation between large-scale atrocities and Democratic administrations appears clear. There is no denying it. It is one of the most disturbing things I have come across in twenty years of writing history.
But what can it possibly mean? 
Some of these events don’t require special explanation. The Holocaust occurred because Hitler had a major war to cover the working out of his ruling obsession, the destruction of the European Jews. Operation Keelhaul and the events following the Vietnam War occurred because the perpetrators had been effectively assured that there would be no reaction – they could do whatever they pleased, and not a hand would be raised to stop them.
But unless we’re willing to accept the most moronic level of conspiracy theorizing, there is no straightforward explanation for the overall pattern. It simply can’t be explained by conventional means. There is no demonstrable connection between the Democratic Party and the squalid crews responsible for these crimes. No easy correlation involving behavior or ideology exists – these atrocities were carried out by groups ranging from the right to the left to primitive tribalists. Certainly not even the sleaziest American politician – much less an entire political party – would make an attempt to benefit from such events.
Which leaves us to fall back on sheer speculation, always keeping in mind that these are stabs in the dark
* To take the most esoteric first: could it be something structural, some process operating well below the current level of our awareness? A Democrat gets elected and for totally unrelated reasons, as a product of social or political forces of which we know little or nothing, dictators are encouraged to deal mortally with their perceived enemies. Global human society is a complex system, in the mathematical sense, ruled by laws and relations as yet unknown to us. Could this be a product of complexity?
* Could it be some sort of unconscious signaling? Some misinterpretation of something completely unrelated by the dictators planning these massacres? Or perhaps, not so unconscious?  Did somebody, God forbid, say something? Some remark that could have been taken as approval by one set or another of these goons? (This can happen. In1969, Henry Kissinger, generally despised as a war hound of the first order, may well have halted WW III by refusing to say anything at all to a Soviet diplomat who sidled up to him to suggest that the U.S. and the USSR cooperate in a nuclear first strike against China. Kissinger hurried away with a word – any answer under the circumstances could have been taken as agreement. And let’s not forget April Glaspie, whose diplomatic choice of words convinced Saddam Hussein that the U.S. would overlook his invasion of Kuwait.)
* Or is it simply a matter of the record? Dictators know their history – nobody better. They’re well aware that responses to such crimes are rare, and rarest of all with a Democratic administration. The record is perfectly clear on this, the point reiterated with each failure to act.  Dems are reluctant to get involved even when they’re fully aware of what’s happening – look at Carter’s behavior in reference to both the boat people and the Cambodian democide. In neither case did Carter make a single move – even as much as an official protest – before the rest of the world, in the form of the UN and various NGOs, was already involved. And tyrants do in fact think in such terms. Consider Hitler’s answer when asked about the worldwide response to targeting the German Jews: “Who now remembers the Armenians?”         
Or could it be coincidence? Correlation, after all, does not demonstrate causality. Overwhelming as the evidence seems, it could be a product of pure chance. Though I have my doubts – it all fits in too well with what we know to be true about the Democrats, their weaknesses and failings, the kind of disasters and blunders that accompany their rule.
The fact is, we don’t know. And we need to know. If a mass murder were to occur every time the optometrists held a convention, somebody would investigate. Here we have entire populations disappearing whenever the donkeys blow through town. It deserves a closer look.
But it won’t get one. It won’t get one because the people most qualified for the task – the academics – are almost uniformly left-wing. Such a study truly requires the skills of specialized historians and social and political scientists. But the chances of such a group carrying out an in-depth historical investigation involving their representative party is precisely nil.
But it won’t get one. It won’t get one because the people most qualified for the task – the academics – are almost uniformly left-wing. Such a study truly requires the skills of specialized historians and social and political scientists. But the chances of such a group carrying out an in-depth historical investigation involving their representative party is precisely nil.
Contrast this with the attempts to associate the GOP with various atrocities from the Holocaust to Darfur, always on dubious grounds. (Recent examples include efforts to implicate the Reagan administration in Saddam Hussein’s 1980s war crimes – a war in which a leading Republican said, “We’d like to see both sides lose”, and The Lancet’s Iraqi “civilian casualty” survey, which produced results ten times as high as estimates by the UN.) These claims have always been justified as expressions of concern for the victims. We look forward to seeing how strongly that sense of concern is maintained in this case.
So for the time being, the ghostly connection between the Democrats and the wagers of genocide must remain a shadow on our knowledge of history. A reminder of how complex things actually are, and how little we truly know.
Though it does throw a new light on 2008, doesn’t it?
J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker.

Liberalism v Islamism

Liberalism v Islamism

By Melanie Phillips

First of all, let me define my terms and say what I mean by Islamism and liberalism. Islamism is the politicised version of Islam which mandates jihad, or holy war against the infidel and conquest of the non-Islamic world for Islam. I�m well aware of the argument that there�s no difference between Islamism and Islam: that�s a theological argument for others to have.

By liberalism I mean the commitment to a free society, founded above all on the separation of secular government from religious worship � from which follow the concepts of equal respect for all people, freedom of conscience, tolerance and the rule of law.

These two concepts, Islamism and liberalism, are currently engaged in a fight to the death. My argument is that liberalism is in danger of losing this fight because it has so badly undermined itself and departed from its own core concepts that it is now paralysed by moral and intellectual muddle.

The Big and Little Satans themselves, America and Israel, are proxies for liberalism and modernity. That�s why Islamism says they must be destroyed. Qutb famously went to America and concluded from seeing men and women dancing at a church hop that America was one giant brothel. And much of the bitter hostility to the Jews who started returning to Palestine in the 1920s was because the women wore shorts and were sexually free.

The Islamist goal is to destroy the virus of freedom and modernity before it infects the Islamic world, and to replace it with Islam. That is the core of the profound threat it poses to the west, a threat mounted through the pincer movement of both terrorism and cultural takeover.

This cultural takeover, or the aim to Islamise the west, was explicitly laid out in a programme of subversion for Europe by the Wahabbi Muslim Brotherhood almost 30 years ago. In 1978, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference sponsored a seminar in London which said Muslim communities in western countries must establish autonomous institutions with help from Muslim states, and lobby the host country to grant Muslims recognition as a separate religious community as a step towards eventual political domination. CONTINUE
Liberalism is the creed of modernity. The driving force behind the Islamic jihad is the fight against liberalism and modernity. All the iconic conflicts � Iraq, Israel, Kashmir, Chechnya, Sudan �are secondary to the fundamental aim of the jihad to prevent liberalism and modernity from destroying Islam.

The founding ideologue of modern Islamism, Syed Qutb, made clear in his writings that at the core of the salafi interpretation of Islam was opposition to the separation of religion and temporal power that resulted in liberalism and democracy. His governing impulse was the fear that the instinct for liberty was so powerful it would spread to and infiltrate the Muslim mind unless it was checked by the most repressive possible form of Islam.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 2:21 pm |

Indoctrinate U — analyzes political correctness on college campuses

Indoctrinate U
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 19, 2007

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Evan Coyne Maloney, an early pioneer of video blogging. He is currently working on a project – Indoctrinate U – that analyzes political correctness on college campuses. His website is Brain-Terminal.com.

Preview Image

FP: Evan Coyne Maloney, welcome to Frontpage Interview.


Maloney: Thanks a lot for the opportunity. 

FP: Tell us a little bit about how your first short video, “Protesting the Protestors,” and how it helped get you started.  

Maloney: In the run-up to the
Iraq war, there were a lot of peace protests getting a fair amount of media attention. But what I noticed was, none of the reporters bothered to look at the extremist organizations organizing these protests. The Workers World Party, the International Socialist Organization and International ANSWER are rather extreme groups, yet I didn’t see anyone in the media looking into their involvement with the protest movement.

If the K.K.K. sponsored rallies in
Washington, and tens of thousands of people showed up, media coverage would undoubtedly include some mention of the extremism of the people who set it up. Yet these organizations are every bit as extreme as the K.K.K., and their involvement was being ignored.

I also noticed that the media refused to cover the radical element that did show up. There were people who were openly supporting suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. There were people comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler, and nobody was questioning it. You don’t have to like President Bush, but if you think he and Hitler are one and the same, then I think you’re pretty ignorant of history.

So I decided to pick up a video camera and cover the element of the protesters that the media was ignoring, and the result was Protesting the Protesters.

It got e-mailed around so much that it became one of those Internet phenomena. Within a day of posting that video, my relatively obscure website, Brain-Terminal.com, was getting mentioned by Rush Limbaugh and national television newscasters like Brit Hume. 

FP: You mention the protestors who openly support suicide bombings against Jewish civilians. The Left thinks of itself as being a progressive force that cares about justice and humanitarianism etc. Yet in this terror war, the Left has ended up being on the side of an ugly totalitarian ideology – an ideology that is based on hatred of pluralism, hatred of women, hatred of minorities, hatred of homosexuals and hatred of almost everything else on earth.  What is the psychology of the Left in this context do you think? 

Maloney: That’s what boggles my mind. Women are second-class citizens in a large part of the world, treated as property, and it is not only acceptable for their husbands to beat them, but it is expected. Rape victims are stoned to death in “honor” killings while gang-rapists face no punishment. And yet the West’s feminists are silent. In a large part of the world, gays can be jailed and subject to chemical treatments in an attempt to change their gender preference. They are hanged and beheaded simply for being gay. And yet the gay rights activists in the West are silent.

I really don’t get it. There are very severe offenses against humanity occurring all over the world, and yet the left ignores them. It seems they are constitutionally incapable of recognizing any injustice unless they can somehow blame it on the West, on white males, on Christians or Jews, or on the
United States.

FP: Zilla Huma Usman, a Pakistani minister and woman’s activist, was, as you know, recently shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil. There wasn’t one peep about this from the Left in general and from the feminist left in particular. Just a deafening silence. I think this serves as a hint of what the Left really cares about and what it doesn’t care about at all.  

So what short videos have you produced since “Protesting the Protestors”?


Maloney: I’ve produced a total 14 short videos that are all freely available on Brain-Terminal.com. 

FP: Your interview with Michael Moore set you on the path of being a full-time documentarian, correct? Can you share the experience with us and how it set you on the road you are on?


Maloney: It was after McCain-Feingold became law, and it occurred to me that the campaign finance laws had a huge loophole in them, what I call the Michael Moore loophole. Whereas private citizens like you or me could not buy airtime to express our views within 90 days of a general election–it would be illegal–
Hollywood was exempt. So people in
Hollywood would have a huge megaphone with which to promote their views, while people like us–people who didn’t have access to the
Hollywood distribution machine–are shut up and shut out of the process.

I didn’t think it was fair that Michael Moore could put out a two-hour political ad in the form of movie, but I as a private citizen could not buy airtime to express my own views (not like I could afford it anyway, but it was the principle of the thing).

So I decided I would try to find Michael Moore to ask him what he thought about that. I staked him out for four days, and ultimately, I got him on camera. The discussion was a little contentious at first, but he did admit that
Hollywood should be more inclusive of different views. He encouraged me to continue working in documentary film. And he even admitted that there’s a market for documentary films other than what
Hollywood typically puts out. Now all I need to do is convince all the folks who put out films like his that he is indeed correct.

They don’t see a market for documentaries unless they hew to the Michael Moore/Al Gore worldview. But I’m going to prove them wrong.


FP: What is the Michael Moore/Al Gore worldview?


Maloney: To me, it’s a worldview that believes that the solution to all human problems is for more government and for greater subservience to government. That the world would be utopia if only we willingly handed over control to a group of hand-picked experts who would be responsible for running things. And that this utopia can be brought about through social engineering if only the will of the individual could be suppressed enough to allow this to happen. 

FP: And it’s a worldview that spawned hell on earth every time it achieved earthly incarnation. 

Tell us about “Brainwashing 101” and its sequel. What responses were there to these films?


Maloney: It’s funny. We had a great response from the audiences who saw the short films “Brainwashing 101” and “Brainwashing 201.” Both films won awards at film festivals, and we got a great reception from the students who got a chance to see them. Even a number of professors were supportive.

But school administrators were another story. It is in their best interests to limit the flow of information leaving campus to glossy admissions brochures and warm-and-fuzzy alumni newsletters designed to encourage graduates to open their wallets. Anything beyond that is a problem for them, especially a film that exposes the dirty little secrets of higher education.

In producing “Indoctrinate U”, we had the police called on us about a half-dozen times. And when we were screening the short film “Brainwashing 101” at

University–my alma mater–the head of security was brought in to threaten me with arrest in front of an audience assembled to watch my film.

I never thought my own alma mater would try to shut down the career of one of its own alumni. It was pretty eye-opening.


FP: So share with us your current project: ”

U.” When will it be released?


Maloney: We’re going to have a media screening for the film at the end of April, at the

Center here in
New York. (For more information, see
the film’s website.


Unfortunately, it’s a little difficult to predict when the film will be released. You see, films are like new cars. The minute you drive them off the lot–or in the case of a film, hold public screenings–they lose significant value. Distributors like to “own the premiere”; they want virgin films. So we’re holding off on any timetables until we’ve exhausted all our options with distributors. And if we still can’t find a distributor, we’ll put it out ourselves. But we’re still trying to give
Hollywood a chance to prove that they’re not the same one-party state that campuses have become.

FP: Why do you think that
Hollywood and the academic campus are one-Party states?

Maloney: If the question is why do I perceive them that way, the answer is pretty simple: ample evidence demonstrates them to be that way.

When you see
Hollywood celebrities expressing their political opinions, very rarely do you see anyone express anything other than a left-wing worldview; it almost never happens. Similarly, when you take a look at the documentaries put out by
Hollywood, to whatever extent they contain a political perspective, it is also invariably left-of-center. Quite simply, that is the default position in

As far as higher education, there have been several studies showing that academics are much further to the left than the rest of society. The fact is, when political speech is suppressed on campus, it is almost always (not always, but most of the time) right-of-center speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a non-partisan civil rights organization that defends the free speech and free thought rights of students and professors in academia, states that most of the cases they receive are of conservatives who’ve had their rights trampled on campus. And FIRE is an organization that defends all comers. So the slant of the cases they receive is a symptom of the overwhelming slant in academia.

Now, if the question is why Hollywood and academia are that way–i.e., how did they get that way–that is a question that I could probably spend decades studying and only begin to approximate an answer.

In a general sense, I think that communities tend to be self-reinforcing, and that when any community passes a certain threshold of uniformity, the self-reinforcing nature of the community becomes exaggerated and more extreme. People who, as individuals, would never think of trying to punish someone simply for their political perspective become much more willing to stand by and let that happen if it appears that such a thing is what the community desires. And as the community becomes increasingly extreme in how it treats dissidents, people who simply stood by when it happened in less extreme cases become afraid to speak out against the increasing extremism, lest they be punished or cast out of the community themselves.

It’s simple group dynamics, and I don’t think any particular part of the ideological spectrum has a monopoly on groupthink and the negative consequences to which it leads. It is a human frailty, not a liberal or conservative thing. 

FP: Share with us some of the innovative things you are doing to make yourself a force that 
Hollywood can’t ignore.

Maloney: I don’t really care whether I’m a force in
Hollywood, and a lot of  things in
Hollywood would have to change before someone like me could  be considered a force there.

But we are doing a few innovative things to prove that there are lots of people interested in the topics we’re covering in ”

U.” On our website, we’ve got
a Google Map where people can type in their zip codes to express an interest in seeing the film near them. And when they plug in their zip codes, it puts a pin in the map, showing graphically that there’s interest all over the country in seeing this film. Already, without spending a single dime promoting the film, we’ve had nearly 150,000 page views on our website, and we’ve got thousands and thousands of towns with pins in them. And we haven’t even spent a dime promoting the website yet.


Preview Image

So, while we have far to go before this grassroots campaign is noticed in
Hollywood, the fact that we’ve gotten this far this fast is very encouraging.

Of course, we need the help of everyone who cares about free thought in higher education, and we need the help of everyone who wishes Hollywood would every once in a while put out a documentary that speaks to them. If people get involved, I think we can help them bring about a lot of positive change.


FP: So what are some ways people can get involved and help?


Maloney: Right now, our biggest hurdle is convincing
Hollywood that there is a market for a different kind of documentary film, one that doesn’t necessarily have the same old perspective that the industry routinely churns out. And that’s where people can help.

If people visit our website and plug in their zip codes, we can prove that a market exists for this film. If they watch the trailer and forward a link to all of their contacts, I think we can get over 100,000 people to punch in their zip codes. And if we do, I think we can get mainstream distribution for this film.

That’s what is needed to help open
America’s eyes. I think many people suspect that these problems exist within academia, but I don’t think they have any idea just how pervasive or severe the problem is. No level of academia is immune, nor is any particular geographic region. Most colleges and universities in
America seem to be this way, and it is important that Americans begin to question the environment on campus and address the problem.

FP: Evan Coyne Maloney, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview and we wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.


Maloney: Thank you very much.


Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Jihad & Hostages: Jimmy Carter & Liberalism’s Gifts To The World

Jihad & Hostages: Jimmy Carter & Liberalism’s Gifts To The World


I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but the safe return of the hostages should not be the primary goal of the English Government. The primary goal of the English Government should be the protection of it’s people by meting out consequences to iran in order to discourage anyone else from committing such grievous offences in the future.

The only appropriate immediate response to such a kidnapping is to threaten. If and when threatening doesn’t work, then it is time to attack, with escalation and cessation ultimately determined by the Government and Military.

Placing the value of the lives of the few hostages over the greater good and lives of the many people, is a facile, child-like approach to things that results in the abdication of all real governmental responsibility. It is a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

There is only one reason this grotesque debacle is unfolding as is. It is because the poisonous thread of Modern Liberalism has blinded and handcuffed the English People and their Government. They need to wipe the Liberals scales from their eyes.

Jimmy Carter is responsible for the current hostage situation in Iran. Modern Liberalism is responsible for the current hostage situation in Iran. Because both Jimmy Carter and liberalism value “don’t hit” over protecting their people by meting out consequences to those who threaten them, Jimmy Carter and Modern Liberalsim sent a clear message to Iran that hostage taking can be done in a void of consequence. Along with waging the Jihad that began, unchecked, under Carter’s watch. Strengthened and emboldened, it is the greatest threat we face today.

Just minutes ago, MSM outlets began reporting that Iran would be airing fresh “confessions” by the tortured and humiliated hostages. The Iranian government is following a focused course of action. The British Government is, I believe, talking