Ward Churchill and Murdering US Officers


PDA






johnmcl
June 30, 2005, 12:17 PM
In Portland, OR Ward Churchill, Professor at the University of Colorado said the following at an anti-war rally:

For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted and in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit? Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect. (Ref Fox News audio clip from the O'Reilly Factor, 29 JUN 05)

What I read is that Ward Churchill is endorsing the murder of US military Officers as an acceptable principle of opposition.

Thoughts?

John

If you enjoyed reading about "Ward Churchill and Murdering US Officers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TheGoodLife
June 30, 2005, 12:26 PM
Thoughts?

Pathetic.

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 12:28 PM
I only hope Ward Churchill and Michael Moore don't marry and have kids with each other.

DirksterG30
June 30, 2005, 12:38 PM
Isn't Ward Churchill just Michael Moore with a wig and contact lenses?

Rebar
June 30, 2005, 12:46 PM
Ward Churchill is just stating out loud, what most leftists believe but won't say.

longeyes
June 30, 2005, 01:02 PM
Yesterday was a good day to die.

Mad Man
June 30, 2005, 01:28 PM
399th post

Source?

When did he say this?

Does anyone have audio/video of it?

Henry Bowman
June 30, 2005, 01:37 PM
a conscientious objector who's already been inducted and in his combat service in Iraq Excuse me? Is there a single person in today's U.S. miltary who was drafted? :confused: The worst punishment for this buffoon is to ignore him. However, as a mainstream media hero, we may not be given this option.

MadMan: See original post.(Ref Fox News audio clip from the O'Reilly Factor, 29 JUN 05)

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 01:41 PM
If Ward Churchill hates this country so much, maybe he should move. I suggest Indonesia or North Korea.

GhostRider66
June 30, 2005, 01:41 PM
Here's an article with the quotes and a link on that page to the video:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2831958

:banghead:

middy
June 30, 2005, 01:46 PM
That's very close to treason, except he worded it as a rhetorical question. Reading between the lines, we all know what he meant and how he would "support" soldiers who fragged their officers.

He wouldn't be convicted of treason in court, but if it were up to me I'd hang him like a horse thief.

shermacman
June 30, 2005, 01:47 PM
Mad Man:
http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/06/video_churchill.html
All kinds of sources listed here, audio, video, transcripts and reactions.

This man should not be fired, silenced, threatened or killed. He should be allowed, nay: encouraged, to continue his tirades.

He is the embodiment of the Left Lunatic Liberals, the mouthpiece of the public Higher Education system, the mirror of the Mainstream Media.

Delmar
June 30, 2005, 01:53 PM
I think it speaks more to the moronic media than it does to this stool specimen of a professor. That they would see fit to broadcast anything this loser has to say confirms my belief the mainstream media is little more than a bunch of pot stirrers.

scottgun
June 30, 2005, 02:06 PM
Ward Churchill was all about the publicity, until it came to light that he plagarized, changed or manufactured the facts of the works he cited, and lied about his ancestry.

He should have taken the buyout when he had the chance, now he is going to be told to leave in disgrace.

P95Carry
June 30, 2005, 02:07 PM
Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect. Sounds relatively clear to me! :fire: :barf:

TheEgg
June 30, 2005, 02:33 PM
Ward Churchill is just stating out loud, what most leftists believe but won't say.

+1

TC66
June 30, 2005, 02:38 PM
Actually this scares the hell out of me. I am getting ready to send my kid off to College and more and more of this type of professor is showing up every day. I don't want my kid around that type person.

Combat-wombat
June 30, 2005, 04:33 PM
He wouldn't be convicted of treason in court, but if it were up to me I'd hang him like a horse thief.
The First Amendment gives anyone, from gun rights activists to neo-nazis the right to speak their mind. I don't care what a jackass Ward Churchill is, he has the right to free speech.

P95Carry
June 30, 2005, 04:38 PM
I would never deny he or anyone does not have the right to free speech. But some things said can still have consequences - which is one of the risks when speaking maybe too freely.

We all have to excercize this right with care and respect to others and be aware of the possibility that things can ''backfire''. :)

scottgun
June 30, 2005, 04:58 PM
The First Amendment gives anyone, from gun rights activists to neo-nazis the right to speak their mind. I don't care what a jackass Ward Churchill is, he has the right to free speech.

He doesn't have free speech in the University setting, just like I don't have free speech on The High Road. We have to abide by the contraints of the forum we are speaking in.

If he wanted to go out on his own and speak his mind, then of course he is free to do so. But to spew his hatred of America while banking 90K a year at a University, isn't protected under the Constitution. The University has the power to set guidelines for what it considers decency.

Jeeper
June 30, 2005, 05:13 PM
He doesn't have free speech in the University setting, just like I don't have free speech on The High Road. We have to abide by the contraints of the forum we are speaking in.

If he wanted to go out on his own and speak his mind, then of course he is free to do so. But to spew his hatred of America while banking 90K a year at a University, isn't protected under the Constitution. The University has the power to set guidelines for what it considers decency.

You are 100% wrong here. It is a STATE university and not private. There is a HUGE distinction!! The Supreme Court has ruled that a state(ie public) institution cannot fire people for expressing their 1st amemndement right. The High Road is private and thus the 1st doesnt apply. If they could do that then think about the consequences. Most colleges are dominated by liberal faculty. That would mean that any conservative who spoke in opposition to some liberal objective like affirmative action could be canned.

I think he is scum but in his current position he can basically do whatever he wants.

wasrjoe
June 30, 2005, 05:21 PM
Ward who?

El Tejon
June 30, 2005, 05:30 PM
At last the Democratic Party has a running mate for Hillary.

middy
June 30, 2005, 05:55 PM
He wouldn't be convicted of treason in court, but if it were up to me I'd hang him like a horse thief.The First Amendment gives anyone, from gun rights activists to neo-nazis the right to speak their mind. I don't care what a jackass Ward Churchill is, he has the right to free speech.
OK. You're right, I must admit.

Good thing it's not up to me. :D

spacemanspiff
June 30, 2005, 06:40 PM
the 'gentleman' known as W churchill was on bill mahers show a few months back, and refused to apologize for his comments about the 9/11 World Trade Center victims to the family member of one of those victims.
to this guys face he still held the belief that those who worked in the WTC got what they deserved.

so much for the 'peace love and understanding' that so-called progressives blather on and on about.

scottgun
June 30, 2005, 06:54 PM
Jeeper - I stand corrected.

But, it won't be his distasteful rhetoric that gets him fired, he already got a pass on that. His plagarism and lying will show that he's not fit to be a professor.

Btw, in the article he mentions Adolph Eichmann again, I think this guy is obsessed with Eichmann.

Shalako
June 30, 2005, 08:10 PM
The First Amendment protects this guy from Government imposed harrassment or punishment.

It does not protect him from getting a sorely needed azzwhupping.

.

Standing Wolf
June 30, 2005, 08:20 PM
If a man's bound and determined to make a great public fool of himself, I try to stay out of his way.

JJpdxpinkpistols
June 30, 2005, 08:27 PM
Ward Churchill is just stating out loud, what most leftists believe but won't say.

Penn&Teller!

Hey...got news for you. I live in Portland and call the left my friends. I don't like what he had to say and FWIW: I have never, ever heard *anyone* echo his beliefs, words or suggestions among the left here. Not one person. No one. I guess I am just not hanging around with the "right" leftists?

I know its all in the vogue to consider the dinezens of the left "the enemy" but judging 1/2 the people in the US by the comments of one nutball is about as correct as the left inferring that all conservatives are drug addicts by using Rush as the barometer.

This dope got a speaking gig here cuz of his infamous remarks and the press it generated (on fox and a few other sources). If a few students wanna pay this yokel to speak, let 'em. *I* won't defend him. I *will* however, defend his right to say whatever the heck he wants.

But some things said can still have consequences - which is one of the risks when speaking maybe too freely.
But to spew his hatred of America while banking 90K a year at a University, isn't protected under the Constitution.

First of all, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE SPEECH "ZONE". All of America is a free speech zone. Let him do his worst. America can take it.

Sr. Weaver is entitled to his opinion, however misinformed and flat out wrong it is. Just as we are all entitled to our own opinions, however...you get the idea.

Thats the 1st amendment for ya.

The Grand Inquisitor
June 30, 2005, 08:50 PM
Glad to see that so many people here who rail about the curtailment of personal freedoms are happily supporting taking individual freedoms away from someone just because he does or says something that you do not like.

Churchill has become the newest strawman for the talking heads (like O'reilly) to burn in effigy to show to their followers that the world of academia is somehow "against" America. For the shameful carnival that ensued after he wrote "On chickens coming to roost" (or something to that effect, I forget...the one about 9/11) there has NEVER been any proof that Churchill EVER plagerized anything and I don't think there will ever be any proof. While I can't vouch for what he said recently, his article about 9/11 is actually fairly benign, once you actually read it and understand what he is saying, but I know that is too much effort for some people, and most would rather bitch and moan than find out what they are supposed to be indignant about. Churchill used Hannah Arendt's term/theory "the banality of evil" to demostrate that the people who were working in the WTC buildings were part of a structure that, in the long term, was harming and oppressing people across the world in impoverished area's, but that in the short term, in those offices, it was nothing more than business deals and filing papers.

The obvious "gotcha" in this is that the people who were sweeping the floors were just trying to scrape by, but I think he is trying to make a theoretical point rather than trying to convince anyone that these people "deserved" to die.

In the end this is very unnerving for a person like myself (an academic who works in Religion) because it shows that in this time when freedoms and liberties are quickly being stripped away, once someone feels that what an academic says in "unpatriotic" that academic can be unjustly stripped of everything he or she has (and Churchill is a fully tenured professor meaning that he has a position that is set in stone). About a year and a half ago (when the Patriot Act II was passed I think) there was a small measure past that any University with a Middle Eastern/Near Eastern Studies program could be stripped of its funding if any of its material (including texts and professors) was deemed suitibly unpatriotic.

Whether or not you agree with Churchill is irrelevent, and whether I agree with him or not is irrelevent, the issue comes down to the fact that he has the right, and the obligation as a professor and as an academic to challenge the status quo and recieved wisdom, because that is the duty of those who are paid to think.

For almost five hundred years math, science, and the humanities were held captive by the "systems" unwavering belief in the Aristotelian and Christian systems, and it would be a shame if we were to regress to forcing everyone to think in one certain path or be expelled from the Academy.

Jeeper
June 30, 2005, 09:11 PM
I bet that the Colorado Regents are re-thinking their tenure system right now. :D

The Grand Inquisitor
June 30, 2005, 09:36 PM
Tenure is tenure.

If you give someone "tenure" with stipulations, it's not tenure.

The whole point of tenure is to protect seasoned academics from bullsh|t like this.

That being said, I think Ward is just trying to stir the sh|tstorm right now and seeing how pissed off he came make everyone.

johnmcl
June 30, 2005, 10:02 PM
Hi Grand,

You make valid points, but I do disagree with a couple of them. I do agree that academics, like Churchill, absolutely do have the right, and yes likely the obligation to put forward their thoughts without fear of retribution. Freedom from retribution means several things including that his job shouldn't be at risk based on his ideas.

I do believe that our agreement, or lack there of, with Churchill is important. The very best way to handle guys like Churchill is to shine the bright light of enthusiastic analysis and debate on his ideas. Leave him alone personally, but take his ideas to the mat. Then the good people of this country will make up their own minds.

John

Hawkmoon
June 30, 2005, 10:20 PM
The First Amendment gives anyone, from gun rights activists to neo-nazis the right to speak their mind. I don't care what a jackass Ward Churchill is, he has the right to free speech.
I agree ... to a point, and with a statement like this he is teetering on the brink of crossing the line.

Courts have ruled (I believe including the SCOTUS) that freedom of speech does not extend to lies, and does not protect the inciting of disorder. I believe the way it was expressed is that there is no Constitutional right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there isn't a fire in said theater.

When a statement can be taken to heart by persons with less than his obvious intellectual standing (cough, cough), and such persons might be encouraged by his words to act out on their suggestion, as much as I believe in and support the freedom to hold and express an opinion, I believe here he is doing more. I believe he is actively seeking to foment rebellion in the ranks of our armed forces, and I believe that IS treasonous.

JJpdxpinkpistols
June 30, 2005, 11:04 PM
I believe he is actively seeking to foment rebellion in the ranks of our armed forces, and I believe that IS treasonous.

I agree, FWIW, but we cannot silence him. We can, and should prosecuted him, but we cannot silence him.

scottgun
June 30, 2005, 11:29 PM
there has NEVER been any proof that Churchill EVER plagerized anything and I don't think there will ever be any proof.

Wrong. Plagarism is black and white, Ward Churchill did plagarize

excerpt from June 10, 2005 Rockymountain News Article
All the facts laid out in recent days point to one unavoidable conclusion: Churchill did plagiarize, and he did invent historical events to suit his political agenda.

True, it turns out that not all of the charges the standing committee on research misconduct is considering are equally damaging to the professor. His invention of facts surrounding the smallpox epidemic among the Mandan Indians in 1837 is more reprehensible than his misrepresentation of the Dawes Act.

His appropriation of Professor Fay Cohen's work for a 1992 essay is more inexcusable than his almost word-for-word use of a paragraph by Professor Rebecca Robbins.

The Grand Inquisitor
July 1, 2005, 12:10 AM
You may have proved that I was wrong, and if I am wrong, he should be punished for that, but I seem to recall that this mongraph in which he presumably plagerized was actually a collection of research he had released (to make condensed info available) and from what he says, what he is being charged with is exatly what he set out to do, to put large, unedited, pieces of archive work available in one volume.

I don't know if he improperly cited something, or if he really did take a piece of previously written work, and with malice aforethought, use it as his own, in that case he does need to be chastised, seriously chastised.

scottgun
July 1, 2005, 02:02 AM
Churchill is vehemently denying any plagarism. One excuse could be that he is putting out works that otherwise wouldn't be seen. I think thats a cheap excuse for stealing others work. He did publish a compilation of others essays, which isn't plagarism, but there are several other instances where he has lifted others work as his own.

His plagarism isn't limited to just written works either. He sold limited edition signed prints that were virtual Xerox copies of someone elses painting

He also sold his own arts and crafts and called then authentic Indian artwork, while he claimed to be 1/16 Native American, which is not true. He had a step-grandmother who was part Native American, no blood relation.

Some might call the whole fiasco a witch hunt, but he's made it a point to be heard, and his entire professional life has been a charade.

But he is into guns. :D

The Grand Inquisitor
July 1, 2005, 02:36 AM
Churchill seems like a normal guy, and since we all do stupid things, whenever any of us are put under heavy scrutiny, we all tend to come out looking tarnished, and that is what is happening with Churchill.

And in regards to his claim to be native, I guess the final word is that he is offically a member of the _____ tribe (I forget which one) and I know this because he has a certificate saying as much (I assume this is normal...) and some of the tribal leaders have vouched for him.


When this sh|tstorm settles, I think Churchill will be best for uncovering a quote from L. Frank Baum (author of the Wizard of Oz) saying, "We need to exterminate the remaining Indians". Even though it is not my field of study, I do know that he is considered a serious force in his own field (Native American studies) and has some pretty important texts in print.

scottgun
July 1, 2005, 02:49 AM
And in regards to his claim to be native, I guess the final word is that he is offically a member of the _____ tribe (I forget which one) and I know this because he has a certificate saying as much (I assume this is normal...) and some of the tribal leaders have vouched for him.

Sorry, wrong again. He was made an honorary associate member of the tribe because he had no Indian ancestry. The tribe has done everything to disassociate themselves from Churchill

Ward Churchill's claim of membership in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians is fraudulent, according to a scathing statement released by the tribal office.

The statement, issued May 9 in the name of the tribal leader, Chief George Wickliffe, and posted on its Web site Tuesday, does not mince words:

"The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990s because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry."

The tribe said that all of Churchill's "past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment,' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein, are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band."

Churchill could not be reached Tuesday, and his attorney, David Lane, did not respond to calls for comment.


You can't say that we all make mistakes and this is OK. I try to live my life pretty honestly as do most people. This isn't losing your car keys. He is living a lie.

As for your quote
L. Frank Baum (author of the Wizard of Oz) saying, "We need to exterminate the remaining Indians".

He is not a Native American !

And please clean up your language, I hate to see threads get locked becuase someone can't express themselves with out using profanity.

LiquidTension
July 1, 2005, 03:26 AM
His rights to free speech extend only as far as not infringing on others' rights. Once he starts actively encouraging the murder of other people, he loses the right of free speech.

I'm all for letting people say whatever they want, even when I don't agree with them (which is most of the time). But just as yelling "fire" in a crowded place isn't protected speech, publicly calling for the murder of military officers - or anyone else - is not protected either. Of course, since he phrased it as a rhetorical question he narrowly skirts that little detail :rolleyes: :cuss:

cracked butt
July 1, 2005, 05:50 AM
Whether or not you agree with Churchill is irrelevent, and whether I agree with him or not is irrelevent, the issue comes down to the fact that he has the right, and the obligation as a professor and as an academic to challenge the status quo and recieved wisdom, because that is the duty of those who are paid to think.

A bit presumptuous donchathink?

Acadamia certainly doesn't have a lock the industry of 'thinking people.'

I get paid mainly to think and to communicate. If I were to go out on weekends and show up in the news acting like a jackass often enough, I would find myself out of a job in a hurry. Like it or not, our public actions can influence how people perceive other facets of our lives. Being in a negative light can cause loss of contracts or sales for my company if potential customers make a link between the jackassery, the person behind the jackassery, and the company the person happens to work for.

Unfortunately, a state university really isn't harmed by such actions. If enrollments fall, the taxpayers pick up the difference in lost revenue, if the university happens to attract more students because of the publicity, the taxpayers once again spend money to subsidize the institution. There is a very big disconnect from reality.

That is why I take the words of tenured professors that happen to be on subjective matters with an ample grain of salt.

Ward Churchill has the right to act like a buffoon only because the rest of us subsidize his right to do so. I say let him say what he wants, if we don't get much enlightenment from what he says, at least there's entertainment value.

Mongo the Mutterer
July 1, 2005, 06:29 AM
Cracked Butt -- Ditto

Whether or not you agree with Churchill is irrelevent, and whether I agree with him or not is irrelevent, the issue comes down to the fact that he has the right, and the obligation as a professor and as an academic to challenge the status quo and recieved wisdom, because that is the duty of those who are paid to think. The Grand Inquisitor -- I guess being an academic makes you automatically superior to the rest of us who are not "paid to think". BTW, I think I will tell the owner of the company I work for today that I am not "paid to think".

What a crock. Guess what Inquisitor? The people who are creative and contribute the most to our nation are out of academia. How do I know this, DO THE MATH. They get PAID MORE than cowardly professors hiding behind their tenure. Oh, also the productive DON'T HAVE TENURE. They PERFORM 24/7 or they are GONE. I am sure it makes you shudder, but that is the way of the world.

The one exception may be in research, which might flourish better in an academic, non capitalist, setting. The rest of academia are :barf: .

Oh, and Ward Churchill can spout his poison all day. All he does is reveal a true face of academia. (If he doesn't, why does he still have a job?)

Have a nice day.

ravinraven
July 1, 2005, 06:56 AM
"Ward Churchill was all about the publicity, until it came to light that he plagarized, changed or manufactured the facts of the works he cited, and lied about his ancestry."

He "plagarized,etc.....and lied about...." Sounds to me like he's a well-adjusted graduate of Looney Left prep school. What's the problem??

But I do like that "running mate for Hitlary" line. Can we get that rumor going?

rr

Warbow
July 1, 2005, 08:22 AM
The Grand Inquisitor wrote:

About a year and a half ago (when the Patriot Act II was passed I think) there was a small measure past that any University with a Middle Eastern/Near Eastern Studies program could be stripped of its funding if any of its material (including texts and professors) was deemed suitibly unpatriotic.

"Patriot Act II" was not passed.

Can you cite a source for your claim of funding being able to be stripped because of unpatriotism if there's a Middle Eastern studies program?

The Grand Inquisitor wrote:

Churchill seems like a normal guy, and since we all do stupid things, whenever any of us are put under heavy scrutiny, we all tend to come out looking tarnished, and that is what is happening with Churchill.

Yep. Those good ol' normal guys who continuously lie, make history up, pass off works of others as their own, call the people who worked and died at the WTC "little Eichmanns" and advocate fragging US military personnel. Where would America be today without normal guys like him? :rolleyes:

ravinraven
July 1, 2005, 08:33 AM
Make me abnormal."

rr

Delmar
July 1, 2005, 08:56 AM
People like Ward Churchill used to make me angry, but now they just make me laugh. He has his head up his acedemia so far that he wouldn't recognise real life if it came up and slapped him in the chops.

When I went to college after my military stint, it was so easy to tell the difference between the profs who had made their way straight out of high school vs the few who had real life experiences to draw upon.

Ward does not have much to draw on, except for his well insulated academic theories, very steeped in horse apples, and very distant from reality.

Great to hear that he has the 1st amendment rights, bought and paid for by non thinkers who do not come close to his mental giant ego, which is all he is feeding.

When we all talk of the 2nd amendment here on this board, the responsibility of that right is well spoken in the same breath, as it should be. To act irresponsibly with our rights as firearms owners does indeed endanger the populace. For some people, I guess we can say any irresponsible thing we want and get a pass on it. After all, they are just words. :rolleyes:

News flash: Words have meaning and consequences too. To advocate the death of commissioned officers as a general rule is not the kind of talk I should be hearing out of a college professor.

OF
July 1, 2005, 09:11 AM
Yep. Those good ol' normal guys ...Don't forget the perspective, Warbow, if you're standing in the hallowed halls he likely would seem quite normal... ;)

shermacman
July 1, 2005, 09:12 AM
Incredibly, Mr. Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Churchill seems like a normal guy...
Incomprehensibly, Mr. Grand Inquisitor also wrote:
Whether or not you agree with Churchill is irrelevent, and whether I agree with him or not is irrelevent, the issue comes down to the fact that he has the right, and the obligation as a professor and as an academic to challenge the status quo and recieved wisdom, because that is the duty of those who are paid to think.
Ward Churchill is not a normal guy, unless you live in academia, I suppose. He didn't copy other people's works and claim them as his because of sloppy penmanship or inadequate source referencing or any other excuse. He plagiarized, pure and simple. He not an Indian, he bought a fake association card from a local tribe who has publicly denounced Churchill. With that identity theft he applied for a position at CU that was open only to a real Indian.

The duty of an academic is not to challenge the status quo. That may be a part of what they have an obligation to do, but that arrogance is now an obsession: to preach hatred, to distort history, to condemn good.

For almost five hundred years math, science, and the humanities were held captive by the "systems" unwavering belief in the Aristotelian and Christian systems, and it would be a shame if we were to regress to forcing everyone to think in one certain path or be expelled from the Academy.

Well, Mr. Grand, you now have your own system of unwavering belief, a pedagogy of hate and lies, deceit and fraud. Ward Churchill is your own cult leader.

TheEgg
July 1, 2005, 10:09 AM
Churchill seems like a normal guy, and since we all do stupid things, whenever any of us are put under heavy scrutiny, we all tend to come out looking tarnished, and that is what is happening with Churchill.

:what:

and I repeat

:what:

Mr. GI, if you are right, I will happily belong to the ranks of the abnormal.

BTW, I worked in Academia for 17 years, got tenure, full professorship -- and then left to go to the private sector because I could not stand the arrogant stupidity of the left on campus, as exemplified by Mr. Ward Churchill. He is far from alone, and as was earlier pointed out is either brave enough or stupid enough to say in public what many say in private. The hatred of America, religion, the military, business, etc. is rampant in the ranks of America's so called academic elite.

gc70
July 1, 2005, 10:45 AM
Any idiot that wants to speak up should be allowed to. In any free exchange of ideas, the wack jobs will always come out looking bad.

roo_ster
July 1, 2005, 11:35 AM
Academics like Ward Churchill squeal like little girls when called to account for their words. I'm not talking censorship or prosecution for treason, I am talking about mere criticism.

They reside in a responsibility-free and consequence-free zone and when someone outside their echo chamber has the audacity to take issue with their words, the tenured radicals cry and moan about "repression" and "censorship."

Ward Churchill is a vile marxist, unpatriotic buffoon, and plagiarizing hack.

This is not the first time a lefty has voiced such sentiments. Wat a nice bunch of tolerant folks.
Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/4/1/144156/3224#16)

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2005, 11:45 AM
Academics like Ward Churchill squeal like little girls when called to account for their words. I'm not talking censorship or prosecution for treason, I am talking about mere criticism.


In any discussion with these wackos, they'll eventually try to counter criticism by saying "I have a right to freedom of speech" -- as if the rest of us don't!

Nick Bacon, a Medal of Honor winner, had a neat counter to that:

Wacko, "I have a right to freedom of speech!"

Nick, "I know. I earned it for you."

Mongo the Mutterer
July 1, 2005, 12:07 PM
Maybe if we exercised our "freedom of expression" non-verbally with these slimeballs.

No, they are too small to spit on and too slimy to step on. I say let old Ward rant on. With every word he brings down academia. I hope the university's enrollment takes a hit, their endowments take a hit, and the taxpayers of Colorado make sure their budget takes a hit.

Money talks, BS walks. I would expect the W.C. BS to walk quickly once the purse pinches.

scottgun
July 1, 2005, 12:21 PM
Freedom of speech doesn't cover plagarism. Tenure is for professors who maintain a basic level of acedemic integrity. Churchill has failed on both accounts.

The saddest part is that Churchill hates white Americans, yet he is what he hates.

Also, he has received numerous death threats and his car has been vandalized with spray painted swastikas.

odysseus
July 1, 2005, 02:33 PM
Churchill's momma needs to come out slap him across the face, and drag him by the ear back home, while saying "Churchill's sorry and he has been a bad boy."

He's an ass.

But then free speech also protects, to some degree, this sort of blabbering from someone who's elevator cannot reach the top floor.

All be it though I think he is seriously close to getting himself in serious trouble with a lot of people. It's too bad the sheep aren't disliking the smell of sheep crap enough.

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2005, 03:31 PM
Maybe if we exercised our "freedom of expression" non-verbally with these slimeballs.

No, they are too small to spit on and too slimy to step on. I say let old Ward rant on. With every word he brings down academia. I hope the university's enrollment takes a hit, their endowments take a hit, and the taxpayers of Colorado make sure their budget takes a hit.

Money talks, BS walks. I would expect the W.C. BS to walk quickly once the purse pinches.


We should do three things:

1. Exercise our freedom of speech to say what we think of slimballs like this. Our target adudience is not, of course the slimeballs themselves, but persons who hear them. Don't allow the slimeballs to pretend they have silenced all opposition, nor that we have nothing cogent to say in regard to their nastiness.

2. Exercise our economic freedoms to direct our money to other colleges, products, and so on, and away from those associated with these slimeballs.

3. Make careful note of who agrees with or defends these slimeballs -- much as a soldier studies enemy uniforms and equipment so he can identify it later.

The Grand Inquisitor
July 1, 2005, 03:32 PM
I don't know about anyone else...but Churchill just gained a few brownie points with me....

Henry Bowman
July 1, 2005, 03:35 PM
TGI, your dissenting, minority view is noted. It's nice that we know where you stand. You stand alone.

The Grand Inquisitor
July 1, 2005, 03:55 PM
Well, I'm glad everyone has villified me now.

I'm not going to try to rebut any of the ad hominem attacks here, and since that is most of them, this will be fairly short.

I don't know all that much about Churchill save a few articles, but some of the pictures I have seen of his speaking engagements he has banners of the tribes up (besides the one already mentioned her eI think he also claims membership in the Creek tribe) and he also has tribe members pull security for him, so he does have some support from the tribes. Also, to the charge that Churchill is "insulated", I just read that he did serve a full tour in Vietnam.

While I haven't seen the plagarism charges fully proved, the best charge the screaming hordes can use against him is that he used his status as a native to gain his position - it is rare - VERY rare for someone without a PhD to be given a faculty position much less a tenured position.

And Henry, if I am standing alone, it will not be the first time, and sometimes standing away from the crowd gives you a better perspective.

Henry Bowman
July 1, 2005, 04:08 PM
Not meant to be an ad hominen attack. Rather your statement:I don't know about anyone else...but Churchill just gained a few brownie points with me.... strongly implies that you support his position that fragging is an honorable action. Your position was attached, not you.

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2005, 04:20 PM
I was an officer in Viet Nam (for two tours.) Churchill's words are an afront to me and every other man, officer or enlisted, who served honorably.

I refer back to my own post -- when we see people supporting or defending the likes of Churchill, we know what they stand for.

Jeeper
July 1, 2005, 04:53 PM
Defnding what he said and defending his right to say it are very different. I definately defend his right to say it.

The first amendment wasnt meant to protect statements like "I love puppies and bunny rabbits". It was meant to protect lunatics like Churchill.

odysseus
July 1, 2005, 05:25 PM
Inquisitor:
the best charge the screaming hordes can use against him is that he used his status as a native to gain his position - it is rare

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not that Churchill's claim of being a Native American is in question? That there is no direct lineage, and that some Native American groups are not happy that he claims he is, and that he has made some statements himself that basically shadow that he may not be?

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2005, 06:00 PM
Defnding what he said and defending his right to say it are very different. I definately defend his right to say it.

The first amendment wasnt meant to protect statements like "I love puppies and bunny rabbits". It was meant to protect lunatics like Churchill.

You're absolutely right -- but the First Amendment applies only to GOVERNMENT actions intended to nullify free speech. We, as individual citizens, can exercise our freedom of speech to refute and condemn Churchill's outrageous statements.

NIGHTWATCH
July 1, 2005, 06:29 PM
Ward Churchill is just stating out loud, what most leftists believe but won't say.

And the ATF and FBI monitor us? :scrutiny: ...... :fire:

Border
July 1, 2005, 07:03 PM
I heard his Indian name is "Walking Eagle" because he is so full of sh*t he couldn't possibly fly!

What you have here is your garden variety, talking monkey. A megalomaniac. What scares ME is not the monkey himself but the fact that he has a following!!! We need to raise kids who wouldn't give this donkey the time of day!

He could be fired for disgracing the university in such a way that they could demonstrate a drop in donations etc.

Mongo the Mutterer
July 1, 2005, 07:13 PM
Well, I'm glad everyone has villified me now.

I'm not going to try to rebut any of the ad hominem attacks here, and since that is most of them, this will be fairly short.My aren't we superior...

you seem to be a troll on this thread.

Delmar
July 1, 2005, 07:23 PM
"Well, I'm glad everyone has villified me now."

Ummm....before you fall on your sword, its not you being villified, its your stance in this particular instance.

cracked butt
July 1, 2005, 07:47 PM
http://thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=26009
http://flag.blackened.net/kara/political/che/pictures/che21.jpeg
http://www.2ampd.net/images/difi2.jpg

All fine upstanding individuals. :rolleyes:

Carnitas
July 1, 2005, 08:31 PM
That fact that he continues to draw breath is all the proof you need of the peaceful nature of gun owners.

The Grand Inquisitor
July 1, 2005, 08:42 PM
Henry - you obviously didn't understand my post.


I think the fact that he is willing to publish photos of himself with an AK and publish his books under AK Press is pretty funny, especially as how it stands against most peoples views of people who would be against gun ownership.

That fact that he continues to draw breath is all the proof you need of the peaceful nature of gun owners.

Is this supposed to be a threat?

Art Eatman
July 1, 2005, 08:55 PM
A little more rationality in this thread and a lot less emoting would please me greatly.

Dunno what it is, but L&P folks, lately, seem just really, really off their meds. Way too much emotion over small beer...

Art

bjbarron
July 1, 2005, 09:51 PM
The First Amendment gives anyone, from gun rights activists to neo-nazis the right to speak their mind. I don't care what a jackass Ward Churchill is, he has the right to free speech.

We NEED people like Ward Churchill to keep talking. We need Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Chomski, and Moore to keep flapping their gums. They represent the progressives in this country...and people need to see that.

Oh, and here is some of Ward's art...plenty more where this came from:

From the '72 book 'Mystic Warrior of the Plains' by Thomas E Mails

http://images.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_055200404/xl

Churchills 'original' art...

http://images.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_055200441/xl

It's embarrassing, and so is he. And for you who defend him...fine. This ain't the 60s anymore. Back then there were no outlets for criticism of moonbats and they only got positive reinforcement from the media. Now that there are ways to respond in a timely manner, the moonbats hate getting called on what they say.

You can speechify all that you want, but you better expect to take an immediate hit from those who disagree or those who can expose your lies. Churchill is 40 years late...and a role model for nobody.

Rebar
July 2, 2005, 12:52 AM
I think the fact that he is willing to publish photos of himself with an AK and publish his books under AK Press is pretty funny, especially as how it stands against most peoples views of people who would be against gun ownership.
Nonsense. He's just posing as a "revolutionary", a half-fast Che Guevara to score with deluded co-eds. I have no doubt he'd snatch our guns away in a second.

2nd Amendment
July 2, 2005, 01:38 AM
I love Ward! He's great. He and people like him should keep right on talking and the media needs to play every word of it, unedited, for the sentient part of the population to think about. The 1st Amendment doesn't just exist so normal people can spout off, ya know. :evil:

ravinraven
July 2, 2005, 08:58 AM
Way back when, the guy---can't think of his name, dammit---said "Though I do not agree with a word you say, I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

I've had people say to me about some of my rantings: "I fully agree with everything you say, but I' ain't about to stick my neck out and repeat any of it."

We owe a lot to "progressives."

rr

Rebar
July 2, 2005, 11:24 AM
"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
—Voltaire

A lot of folks here are making an error. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.

LawDog
July 2, 2005, 02:40 PM
Any right that you exercise comes with responsibilities and obligations.

I am sick and tired of the recent view promulgated by various universities and the Internet that it's perfectly all right to claim whatever right you want, while ignoring the inherent responsibilities and obligations of that right.

Ward Churchill has the right to shoot off his mouth. Along with that right, he has the obligation not to cause harm to anyone else while shooting off said cakehole.

If, while running his yap, he spreads falsehoods, incorrect information or flat out lies, then his right to free speech also includes the responsibilty to correct his error and take the flak like a man.

LawDog

Vern Humphrey
July 2, 2005, 02:53 PM
Ward Churchill has the right to shoot off his mouth. Along with that right, he has the obligation not to cause harm to anyone else while shooting off said cakehole.


People like Churchill are notoriously unwilling to take responsibility.

But that's okay -- as long as WE also have freedom of speech to refute and oppose them.

Let slimeballs like this talk -- they only make themselves and those who support them stand out so the rest of us can see them for what they are.

torpid
July 2, 2005, 03:28 PM
"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, although fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect."

—Voltaire?

:confused:

.

NHBB
July 2, 2005, 04:05 PM
may he some day cross paths with a current or former officer and see how far his protected freedom of speech gets him on the streets.

Vern Humphrey
July 2, 2005, 04:20 PM
may he some day cross paths with a current or former officer and see how far his protected freedom of speech gets him on the streets.

That would be me -- as a former adviser and company commander during two tours in Viet Nam. And as satisfying as it would be to break his nose for him, it would be counterproductive.

ravinraven
July 2, 2005, 06:06 PM
I have sometimes thought of liberty as a wall that protects us from tyranny. The blocks the wall is made of are our rights. The mortar holding those blocks in place is our responsibility. When the mortar of responsibility is removed the wall falls down. When the gov't sets a right aside for our "benefit" with the mortar removed, now there is a hole in the wall and tyranny leaks in.

Anytime the gov't finds a "right" they need to "protect" for you, the sum total of liberty diminishes.

rr

Mongo the Mutterer
July 3, 2005, 08:05 AM
I heard someone say once, that you have to understand codewords.

"Right" = "Priviledge" Today

We have been so beaten down by the word "rights", we have forgotten this.

I view my "rights" as what I have earned, or my ancestors have earned me, by being an American. They are not a priviledge, they are a trust.

My ancestors certainly paid a heavier price than I have so far.

That said, Wardy boy has a right to say what he pleases (until he commits a crime by saying the words). He gives us a true look into academia. Before you lay down your sweat and tears to send your little ones off to college, check out the faculty. Money talks BS walks.

Oh, on rights, I was approached by a young comely lass several years ago in Downtown St. Louis who had a petition on a clipboard. I read the petition as she was yammering at me to sign it. It had the word "rights" about 15 times in each paragraph. I handed the clipboard back to her, without signing the petition. She looked puzzled and asked me why I didn't sign it. I told her "Maybe I think you have too many rights already." Priceless.

middy
July 5, 2005, 10:46 AM
Let me ask you this: would you render support to someone who hadn't peacefully criticized Ward Churchill, but rather instead strung him up by his ankles, thrashed him with nettles, and left him in the swamp overnight for the mosquitoes?

Just a rhetorical question...

BeLikeTrey
July 5, 2005, 11:27 AM
then see what the marines at the gates say to him if he makes it that far to a base :)

Harve Curry
July 5, 2005, 11:35 AM
He's talking about rolling a grenade under a fellow American soldier, whether that is an officer or not, it sounds like treason to me.
Would he have gotten away with saying that in WWII?

EghtySx
July 5, 2005, 11:47 AM
Is he in effect advocating fragging someone who doesn't believe the way you do? Well, he certainly in no way thinks the way I do ...

Ezekiel
July 6, 2005, 12:00 AM
What I read is that Ward Churchill is endorsing the murder of US military officers as an acceptable principle of opposition.

1. I cannot disagree with the above, if you're the "other guy" (i.e., the enemy).

2. As for "fragging" my own officers, there are without question situations wherein I would do it: in a heartbeat. (Anyone who cannot fathom such a situation was either brainwashed in boot camp, has very little imagination, or both.)

3. But I am personally unaware of any such situations occurring right now that would lead me to such action.

However, if we continue to act as an imperialist and self-righteous Charlemagne -- creating further global turmoil and decaying our personal freedoms under the guise of "protection" -- I may be forced to reevaluate my stance: we'll know in five years.

"Good luck to us all!" :D

JOE MACK
July 6, 2005, 08:33 PM
If he'd ever really been in 'Nam, HE'D have been the one to be killed by friendly fire. Morning would have found this nutball deceased in his bunker, trench, or foxhole. He might have been shot in the back while running from the enemy. What a pathetic individual. :barf:

Hammerhead
July 9, 2005, 10:18 AM
Hello,
It's kind of ironic that Viet Nam came up here, because that is another area where Mr Churchill has ... how shall I put this... an active fantasy life. He was apparently in VN, but his records show no actual combat, and he claims to have volunteered for LRRP (Long Range Recon Patrols), a very dangerous and glamorous job. Jusy another lie to make a silly little man seem like more than he is.

Looking at this guy is like digging in a cesspool. The more you dig, the more crap you find.

Oh, and Grand Inquisitor, you said, "... the obligation as a professor and as an academic to challenge the status quo and recieved wisdom, because that is the duty of those who are paid to think. "

and "Churchill is a fully tenured professor meaning that he has a position that is set in stone"

What I have seen is that people really feel that way, that they have to challenge the status quo, not because it is wrong, or because it is not working, but because that is the cool thing to do. If a historian looks at the existing work on a subject and thinks, "Wow, this is absolutely correct. This is THE last word on the subject", there is nothing to publish, nothing to say. But if he says to himself, "Wow, this it the definitive work on the subject. If I attack it, I will get lots of notice!" The system encourages such silliness.

Or the attraction of 'protest-chic'. "Gee, I wish I had something to protest, but the Civil Rights thing is going pretty well, and the Viet Nam war is over, and wow, it doesn't look like any fun at all to work in the inner city, and I SURE don't want to lose my tenured position... Hey I know, I will be all anti-capitalist and say outrageous things and get noticed! I might even get some book-sales out of it!"

I would love to get rid of tenure, but I don't think that it will ever happen. Professors love to talk about how it ensures their freedom to hold unpopular opinions, but I think it really ensures their freedom to hold on to their jobs despite massive incompetence.

Regards,
Hammerhead

ravinraven
July 10, 2005, 09:52 AM
"I would love to get rid of tenure, but I don't think that it will ever happen. Professors love to talk about how it ensures their freedom to hold unpopular opinions, but I think it really ensures their freedom to hold on to their jobs despite massive incompetence."

Amen. I was a tenured prof with an unpopular opinion and got the boot from the SUNY system. Here's how. My unpopular opinion was that the jury I was on found a legal and correct verdict involving a phony rape case. I defended our verdict when the man-tashing establishment "took exception."

Guess what? Budget crunch. Twenty-six are told to pack up and leave. Then a miracle. Enough money was found for twenty-five to stay.

Guess who went.

rr

Mongo the Mutterer
July 10, 2005, 10:05 AM
Raven,

Whoooaaa!

Man, If you could prove that you might be able to own the SUNY system.

If you hold a leftist position on the issues.

If NY courts are the same as the Peoples Republic of St. Louis Kounty, you should be able to cash out baby!

Oh, wait a minute, the university forced you out... You must have taken a conservative position. Good luck. I still would sue the SOBs.

You were exercising your duty as a citizen? Jury Duty? I would put them over a slow flame...

ravinraven
July 10, 2005, 09:34 PM
Howdy, MtM.

The babe that told me about what they did [Of course I was suspicious because the blessed UUP was helping get me fired] had her lawyer call me up after she sobered up. I was informed that she'd deny the whole thing and sue me if I tried to get her into court to testify.

Yeah. I took a "rule of law" position and not a rule of man position as the Libs do. That made me bad medicine. Conservative bastid, me.

rr

mountainclmbr
July 11, 2005, 12:36 AM
This clown was voted "most popular professor" at CU recently. Many leftists in Boulder have bumper stickers saying "Free Tibet". This really confuses me. I am getting a bumper sticker that says "Free Boulder First!"

SamlautRanger
July 11, 2005, 12:55 AM
After having spent the last 3 years in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, and Cambodia fighting terrorism and criminal activity - I am starting to think that some of the USA's worst enemies are here in our own country. Some of these liberals and the immorality are doing more to destroy our nation than terrorism ever will.

Ward Churchills statements outrage me and it even outrages me more that so many support him. This shows how far our nation has declined. What would happen if a College professor in 1943 had said the same things?

Mongo the Mutterer
July 11, 2005, 06:01 AM
SamlautRanger -- Thank you for your service.

When these libtards get soooo close to treason, it amazes me. I believe in free speech. I don't care what this (non high road rant) "professor" says. He is a poser and an idiot. What I can't understand is why universities give these slime a platform.

Oh, the U's will say, "strident discourse", "marketplace of ideas", "diversity" and the usual BS.

It will stop when the money stops going to fund these scum filling our faculties. (I do believe there are more on the Churchill side than we realize).

Work through your representatives to attack this stuff. Check the bonafides of the faculty of your state universites through the university website. Read their stuff. Concentrate on the J school, "ethnic studies", and the other cesspools of leftists. :barf:

</rant>

Vern Humphrey
July 11, 2005, 09:36 AM
After having spent the last 3 years in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, and Cambodia fighting terrorism and criminal activity - I am starting to think that some of the USA's worst enemies are here in our own country. Some of these liberals and the immorality are doing more to destroy our nation than terrorism ever will.


Amen. The worst of it is, our enemies see and hear what they do and they think, "If we just hang on a little longer, commit a few more atrocities, kill a few more Americans, it will be Viet Nam all over again."

That's giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Don't let these people do to your generation what they did to my generation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ward Churchill and Murdering US Officers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!