Ward Churchill Speaks With Forked Tongue

[GregoryA]

Ward Churchill, you know who he is, the CU "professor" and chairman of that university's Ethnic Studies Department who in a recent essay concerning 9-11 called those who died in the WTC "little Eichmans" and basically said we got wht was coming to us has been exposed as a fraud.

This man used a fabricated Native American heritage to get his position at CU and to be a spokesman for the Native American case. The American Indian Movement states he is not a Native American.

What a Surprise!!! This ultra leftist psuedo intellecutal with his visciously anti-American views, is a counterfeit in everyway.

Americans don't want him and the original Americans don't want him either. Awesome!

[scrap]

I say lets take him out and flog him with his" forked tongue"

[GregoryA]

;)I say let's use his image for a new expansion baseball team....The Bolder Lyin' Liberal Lizards.

[midcan5]

Ward Churchill tests positive for Indigenous genetic markers

by Ernesto Cienfuegos - La Voz de Aztlan

Los Angeles, Alta California - February 7, 2005 - (ACN) The results of a much awaited ancestry genetic test of embattled American Indian scholar Ward Churchill conclusively proves that the professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder is in fact of both Creek and Cherokee descent. Professor Churchill has recently been the victim of a campaign of disinformation claiming that he was not a Native American.

Genetic science has progressed to the point that it is now possible to determine ones ancestry on both the father's and mother's side. "Gene Genealogy" now offers a universal and verifiable method of tracing genetic lineage and the ability to scientifically confirm biological relationships as well as uncover genetic legacies dating back thousands of years. Genetic material belonging to Professor Ward Churchill underwent the following three testing protocols:

www.aztlan.net/churchill_creek_cherokee.htmTEXTTEXTTEXTTEXT

[midcan5]

Text of Churchill statement

By DenverPost.com

Here is the text of a statement distributed to the media Monday on behalf of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Spelling and punctuation have been left unaltered.

Press Release - Ward Churchill January 31, 2005

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.

* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government."

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2686093,00.html

[groucho]

midcan5 said:

Ward Churchill tests positive for Indigenous genetic markers

by Ernesto Cienfuegos - La Voz de Aztlan

Los Angeles, Alta California - February 7, 2005 - (ACN) The results of a much awaited ancestry genetic test of embattled American Indian scholar Ward Churchill conclusively proves that the professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder is in fact of both Creek and Cherokee descent. Professor Churchill has recently been the victim of a campaign of disinformation claiming that he was not a Native American.

Genetic science has progressed to the point that it is now possible to determine ones ancestry on both the father's and mother's side. "Gene Genealogy" now offers a universal and verifiable method of tracing genetic lineage and the ability to scientifically confirm biological relationships as well as uncover genetic legacies dating back thousands of years. Genetic material belonging to Professor Ward Churchill underwent the following three testing protocols:

www.aztlan.net/churchill_creek_cherokee.htmTEXTTEXTTEXTTEXT

Yeah. Right. Sure. Whatever.

"Genetic Genealogy" is the latest smokescreen the liberals have concocted to cover up their astounding lack of SUBSTANCE behind their theories. Oh, I'll admit this "new concept" for genetics is mildly interesting on the surface - until you look a little deeper. This is nothing new; the fact that there is such an elaborately detailed description of this supposedly "cutting-edge" form of documentation one's biological anscestry is nothing more than a diversionary tactic, designed to divert the focus AWAY from what Komrade Churchill said, pure and simple.

"Genetic Genealogy?"
Back in the day, we used to call it DNA!!!

Stupid a s s holes...........

[groucho]

midcan5 said:

Text of Churchill statement

By DenverPost.com

Here is the text of a statement distributed to the media Monday on behalf of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Spelling and punctuation have been left unaltered.

With added truth inserts.

Press Release - Ward Churchill January 31, 2005

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.

Oh dear - you're crying about the fact that more than 3 people actually RESPONDED to what you said, this time around? Welcome to the world of Understanding, Pal!!!

* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

Score one for you!!! Dan Rather never got the chance to inflate his Internet lie into a book......

* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

And scum like you PROFIT from so much tragedy; you're preying on the very disquiet within the US, in order to further the chaos, not provide any reasonable alternative!!! You're showing your true colors, dude.

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government."

Yeah. A peaceful man, in a violent time.
Bull s h i t. This country has well-established ways and means to effect peaceable change. It's called the electoral process. If you choose to ignore it, fine - but don't wonder why you suddenly get b i t c h-slapped when you quit playing by the rules. Don't throw race into it; PRESIDENT GEORGE WALKER BUSH has made Dr. King's "dream" into REALITY. Not LBJ, Carter, or Clinton. BUSH wiped out the race card - but, since he's a Republican, that doesn't count.

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

Hmmm..... Madeline Albright.... JEWISH WOMAN........ Nah!! No connection to 9/11 - my error!!

And nothing about the 30 million + abortions in the US since 1972? My, my - your care and concern is TRULY all-encompassing........ Go add up ALL your previous figures, then compare the total with mine. And please make careful note of the fact that, while I despise the reality, MY figure is duly PROTECTED BY LAW.

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

You're saying essentially the same thing - "I'm not responsible for what I've said!" Doesn't it HURT when you trip over your own logic? And now you're "a target" yourself - BY YOUR OWN ACTIONS, YOU STUPID JERK!!!!

* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

Nor should you, when the Light of Truth comes your way. For God's sake man, REAP what you have SOWN!!!! Bloody coward!!!

* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

"Technicians" the only target, eh? Let's see, I don't have my '05 edition of the PC-speak Dictionary handy, but I'll make do with the '04 edition. "Janitor:" that's "custodial technician;" "food service worker:" that's "edible-preparation technician;" the kids are "youth community technicians," and the random passers-by are "temporarily disengaged technicians."

Collateral damage is still ongoing, to this day - otherwise, YOU would not be enjoying your 15 minutes of fame......

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

What is it with you, and citing every off-the-wall "grievance" to support your claim? Race baiting is one thing, but now you have the gall to use Nuremberg? How many ways are you trying to spin this? Had the US not participated back then (setting an example that hasn't been followed to this very day, by most of the other involved nations), YOU wouldn't be so able to speak your mind (such as it is). And the fact that you are doing so HERE, instead of say, France, or Iran speaks volumes......

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

Nope. You're in violation of US Tier 1 Air Quality Standards, friend. We're "going green" and cutting down on environmental pollution issues such as your own.
And thanks to you, we have to waste TWICE as much precious cork, because we don't know which orifice is "intake," and which is "outspew!"

To be fair, we will credit you with a small positive, regarding the boost you've given the flightless avian excrement* industry, through your tireless efforts.......

JAI BABA, M*THERF*CKER!!

(* = chicken sh^t)

[midcan5]

Groucho, Science should be separated from political ideologies.

For those interested in "Genetic Genealogy" I suggest a quick Google search. One site is noted below.
www.savin.org/dna/introduction.html

Groucho's comments and vulgarisms hardly constitute argument but I was curious what Bush has done better than LBJ. Groucho wrote:

"Bull s h i t. This country has well-established ways and means to effect peaceable change. It's called the electoral process. If you choose to ignore it, fine - but don't wonder why you suddenly get b i t c h-slapped when you quit playing by the rules. Don't throw race into it; PRESIDENT GEORGE WALKER BUSH has made Dr. King's "dream" into REALITY. Not LBJ, Carter, or Clinton. BUSH wiped out the race card - but, since he's a Republican, that doesn't count."

I have no idea where you live but wiping out the race card is a rather difficult proposition in my world. Since most backs earn much less than whites or did I miss something?

Also:

"And nothing about the 30 million + abortions in the US since 1972? My, my - your care and concern is TRULY all-encompassing........ Go add up ALL your previous figures, then compare the total with mine. And please make careful note of the fact that, while I despise the reality, MY figure is duly PROTECTED BY LAW."

Since most right wingers have little idea of logic or debate. Could I not just as easily say 40 million die each year. Every 2 seconds a child under 5 dies of malnutrition in the world. These are children not the cellular beginning of life. So I ask you if your concern is life why did you not mention them? I can answer cynically as you did but I will not.

Ward Churchill was on cspan last evening, did you see him?

[midcan5]

OT

www.cofc.edu/~portmord/101-L9.htm

Each year millions of children die from easily preventable causes. Each year around three million children die from dehydrating diarrhea. Most of these deaths can be prevented by administrating oral rehydration salts at a cost of around 15 cents a packet. Also millions of children die from immunizable diseases. Each year over a million die from measles alone, and it only costs $17 to vaccinate a child against measles. Pneumonia claims 3.5 million children each year, making it the leading childhood killer. However, most of these deaths can be prevented with a simple shot of antibiotics costing about 25 cents. Many malnourished children have a deficiency in vitamin A, causing their immune systems to be greatly debilitated. Many of these children can be saved with a semiannual dose of vitamin A costing only 10 cents.

[GregoryA]

midcan5 said:

Text of Churchill statement

By DenverPost.com

Here is the text of a statement distributed to the media Monday on behalf of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Spelling and punctuation have been left unaltered.

Press Release - Ward Churchill January 31, 2005

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.

* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government."

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2686093,00.html

Sounds like Ward is doing a bit of back peddling.


I guess the chickens have come home to roost for old Ward.


He should know that when you push people they sometimes push back.

His words have come back to bite him in his backside,
the same backside he is now attempting to cover.
Too late Ward.

[Ian]

Since most right wingers have little idea of logic or debate. Could I not just as easily say 40 million die each year. Every 2 seconds a child under 5 dies of malnutrition in the world. These are children not the cellular beginning of life. So I ask you if your concern is life why did you not mention them? I can answer cynically as you did but I will not.

And of course there are no right-wing, let's say Christian missions taking care of starving and ill children all over the world.

And may I ask why you don't mention all the innocent civilians killed at the hands of "Islamic Radicals" when you condemn the collateral damage inflicted by US troops? Please, let us not get bogged down in contrived pleas for acknowledgement of every death in history.

[midcan5]

I have great admiration for all who help I am a liberal. My number is wrong above, it is 40 thousand who die each day. Not necessary to do the math for a year that figure is sad enough.

[GregoryA]

Last evening I was listening to "The Savage Nation" and Michael Savage played an audio clip from one of Fraud Churchill's college speaking engagements. I will paraphrase what this "professor" said.


He stated when he gets a ticket by a state trooper, he smiles and politely accepts the ticket. Then he makes sure before he leaves that state to destroy public property which equals fine.


OK, this "man" is allowed to hold a professorship at an American institution of higher learning?

This person who advocates braking the law is allowed to preach his junk to college audiences across the US?


I am all for civil disobedience as written by Henry David Thoreau and practiced by MLK and Ghandi, but this is a far cry from that.

He is a punk, pure and simple.