The termination and removal of Ward Churchill (could use a good fisking)

Sorry, to be more clear- I'd like to have the URL or other references that can prove the statements below are true:
(not because I don't believe you, but so that I can send the links to Professor Perkins. Thanx.)

"The Census Bureau policy is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. CU's policy is the relevant standard.

The application Churchill filled out stated clearly that the description Native American/Pacific Islander applied only to persons descended from the original peoples of North America."

"Moreover, Churchill claimed Affirmative Action preference on his application. He was one of eleven Native Americans who applied for the job, one of two who were interviewed.

I rather doubt that the other Native American who was interviewed would feel quite so dismissive about Churchill's true ancestry as Mr. Lyons is."

do u, by any chance, also have definitive proof that he's not 3/16 Cherokee? That seems to be the hinge of the argument. I know it is difficult to prove a negative, but it seems it is necessary.

I don't quite know how one goes about proving a negative. But Indian Country has been on Churchill's case for years and this article by Suzan Harjo is a good summary of their semi-official view.

Plus, there are hearsay reports included that, at one time, Churchill claimed no Native American ancestry.

Another Indian Country article identified Churchill's supposed Cherokee ancestor as a gentleman named Tyner (or Tyson, can't recall), c. 1780-1800. It appears that Tyner's second wife was indian, but Churchill is descended via the first wife. A search of their website or Google might uncover that specific report.

I think that's the real reason people are now howling for Churchill's head: he committed the cardinal sin of asking Americans to ~~consider the facts~~ ignore his blatant biases and persistent fraud and ~~think for themselves~~ think like him...

There, that's a bit more accurate.

I think there were many well-intentioned critiques written about American foreign policy and whether and to what degree it had anything to do with 9/11. I don't think many of those critics raised nearly the ire Churchill has, and for good reason. I don't recall any of them sinking to Churchill's despicable attempt to equate innocent civilians with Eichmann, nor measured, organized military action to ruthless, murderous terrorism.

Ordinary people can intuitively tell the difference. Mr. Churchill knows the difference. The ire of the American public is ignited when this perverse, inflammatory rhetoric is condescendingly published in the name of scholarly thought. When this vitriol is added to Churchill's long history of fraud and unscrupulous ambition, even a patient and tolerant public might just get sick of it.

Your wife's comment, from your blog:

Something along the line of- "he's a hustler making a buck- why bother him?" I don't care for ethnic identifcation, Affirmative Action etc, so she's got a point.

At bottom, I agree with her assessment of Churchill. His entire life has been pretty much a lie. E.g., he claims to have been a Ranger and seen combat in Viet Nam -- when he drove a jeep and edited the battalion newsletter...he claims to have written for Soldier of Fortune -- but they never heard of him, even in a free lance capacity...he claims to have taught the Weather Underground how to make bombs -- but those he may have taught have been silent (or deceased).

Early on, Churchill found a way to game the system -- and it suited him. It was a relatively easy gig...and it earned him a lot of fawning attention. A natural occupation for a self-absorbed grifter, who probably spent his juvenile and adolescent years nursing resentments and bitching about life being "unfair" to him (not others).

Churchill's interest in the "oppression" of American Indians probably extends no further than that of an actor playing a part.

It's amazing how academe could buy into such a transparent scam. Perkinson is a fool if he insists on feeding the monster.

That's not to say that, as a partisan, I wouldn't mind Churchill making regular public appearances and getting beaucoup TV coverage. He is the academic left's tar baby -- and the more he talks, the more he reveals about them all.

Quoted in article, excerpt from http://www.pressaction.com

"A few minutes after the state of the union address, Colorado Governor Bill Owens called in to my evening show, during which I cited the treason statute as I had on previous shows covering the ‘professor.’ My show is heard via the airwaves in 38 states and around the world via streaming audio (an Internet-based parlor trick), so the more I said ‘treason’ the more the word caught on. Now the governor has apparently looked into the treason angle and agrees that Churchill has committed treason. So, too, have some people like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, according to one of my listeners who watch MSNBC."

Ward Churchill is a self-avowed Marxist. To my understanding, Marxism is the very antithesis to America's founding precepts: its Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Proclamation of Independence. The truth is Marxists covet the power of capitalism and despise middle-class economic independence. Today, America has no oppressed labour class so Marxists foment issues warfare through violent "peace" protests and by leading centric groups into militant activism. The funny part, the big fallacy of socialist utopian benevolence, is that a Marxist/Socialist government would be the sole and exclusive capitalist! Think about this: a ruthless covetness is the root of Karl Marx's anti-capitalism.

More about Marxist Ward Churchill who insults all American Indians because he justifies his radicalism by posing as an irate dispossessed American Indian:

The Record of a Radical
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 10, 2005

Thanks in large measure to the impassioned public outcry prompted by his invitation to speak at Hamilton College, some of the disquieting aspects of Ward Churchill’s career are now common knowledge. He is, infamously, the tenured professor of “Ethnic Studies” at the University of Colorado who waxed rhapsodic about the September 11 terrorist attacks while vilifying its victims inside the World Trade Center “as little Eichmans.” Less well known is the fact that he has long advocated political violence—and has apparently practiced what he preached. He has also falsified his own personal history (apparently including his ethnicity and combat status) and twisted history to accuse white Americans of genocide.

Indeed, on at least two occasions, Churchill has been accused of throttling speech he does not endorse by violent means. In 1993, following his ouster from the radical group the American Indian Movement (AIM), Churchill reportedly retaliated by spitting in the face of AIM’s elderly leader, Carol Standing Elk, while a younger accomplice broke her wrist. In a less violent but equally offensive example of “direct action” ten years later, Churchill—who has repeatedly invoked his right to free speech as all-purpose defense against his critics—was acquitted on charges of obstructing the Columbus Day parade in Denver. Likeminded judges, it seems, accepted Churchill's protestations that a parade celebrating Columbus was tantamount to “hate speech.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.