Posted on 03/05/2005 4:44:06 PM PST by freespirited
As you probably know, all-purpose fraud Ward Churchill brought his touring one-man carnival to University of Wisconsin-Whitewater on Tuesday, to the delight of his hebephrenic admirers. Hired by the university to bleat about the plight of allegedly oppressed Indians, he yapped instead about himself and his depraved opinion that the mass-murdering terrorists of 9/11 were the good guys. Drunk on the attention his outrageous views have attracted, Churchill continued to regurgitate venom on the country he so undeservingly calls his home, not backing an inch away from his characterization of the murder of 3000 American civilians as a justified act.
Nor did he back down from the highly suspect claim that he is part Indian, which has been so critical to the success of his career; the current story is that he is one-sixteenth Cherokee. For all I know or care, I'm one-sixteenth Cherokee myself, but it seems fairly certain that Ward Churchill is not, or he would have been able to prove it by now.
By now Churchill's psychotic opinions and cartoonish phoniness are old news. Reasonable people will have already reached the conclusion that Ward Churchill — and what he represents — are vile, evil and insane. But a couple of interesting questions remain: Just what does he represent? And will there be a price to be paid for the way its spokesman has insulted us?
Most obviously, Churchill represents the academic establishment, the ivory tower screwballs who soak up public money faster than Ted Kennedy's Big Dig, yet who are completely unaccustomed to having to justify their silly and pernicious views to the country that they think they have a right to despise. Full-blown nutcases like Churchill do not get to be department heads at major universities without a great deal of collusion on the part of the milieu that created him — educrats and elitist colleagues who can be presumed to be at least somewhat sympathetic to his loudly and incessantly expressed anti-American bigotry.
Will they pay a price? Maybe. Certainly the reputation of University of Colorado is swirling down the drain, although the educrats running the place seem only dimly aware of it. After they were forced to remove Churchill as department head, they replaced him with Emma Perez, who has been picking up right where Churchill left off, according to Rocky Mountain News. In a "disjointed, poorly written essay" for the leftist newsletter Counterpunch, Perez is reported to have characterized criticism of Churchill's abominations as a "neo-con test case for academic purges." It seems Hillary Clinton's dreaded Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has turned its attention to harassing well-meaning college professors.
UW-Whitewater may pay a small price for their commitment to "freedom of expression" (a term that is phony and meaningless in the context of academia, since it is never applied to speech that they are truly opposed to — imagine educrats inviting a white supremacist to speak on these grounds). Students are bound to resent the $1,400 in fees that they paid, willingly or otherwise, for the privilege of having Churchill justify the 9/11 attacks on their campus, though there isn't much they can do about it. More importantly, about 80 alumni vowed to end their financial support to protest Churchill's appearance, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
But if there is a real price to be paid for creating this Frankenstein monster of the Left, it won't be by a handful of educrats with conspicuously poor judgment in Boulder and Whitewater. It will be by the Democratic Party, already in freefall, and hardly needing Ward Churchill tied around its neck.
The Badger Herald reports on student demonstrations at the Whitewater spectacle, put on by campus Republicans and by campus Democrats. One group was opposed to Churchill's appearance, the other in favor.
Is there anyone in the country who couldn't guess which group was which?
If I were in a courtroom prosecuting the Democratic Party for treasonous impulses, moral depravity, contempt for innocent life, palpable phoniness, and visceral hostility to the very concept of decency, I would rest my case with that question.
Only the extremely unsophisticated openly cheer someone as obviously objectionable as Ward Churchill. But it's clear where general sympathies lie. Average Democratic voters are almost certainly appalled by creeps like Churchill — which is why they won't remain Democratic voters indefinitely. Because the engine driving their party ever farther to the Left is fueled by the psychotic, inwardly directed hatred spewed by Churchill and his ilk. If George Soros is the modern Democratic Party's wallet, Ward Churchill is its id.
PS: If morbid fascination has you addicted to Churchill coverage, check out Pirate Ballerina and Ward Churchill Is a Fraud. Hat tip to Little Green Footballs for this video of the Whitewater speech.
"He has no following whatsoever but if he continues to receive notice from the likes of the writers to this forum he will."
Unfortunately, this guy HAS a "following" already. I say, keep him in the forefront as the poster child for the Liberal Democrats. What better way to paint a portrait of how crazy these people can be.
Doesn't it seem like the liberals/Democrats are running their own reality television program on who the Most Dysfunctional Person in America is?
I disagree. The longer he stays in the public eye the greater damage he causes to the left. There will always be a group that will rush to his defense, but this group has no credibility with reasonable people.
We need to keep this alive as long as possible.
The Democrats have had spokepeople of Chuchill's ilk since at least as far back as 1972. Any voter that hasn't left the party in that period isn't likely to because of the latest nut on the scene.
Ward Churchill is the phoniest of phonies and the fact that he is a tenured professor makes me laugh out loud.
I have heard that the computer powering the Voyager Spacecraft is equivalent to a Commodore 64.
I had a calculator in 1972; it did regular arithmetic and squares, square roots and percents, and it cost $600.00. Ten years later I had a calculator that could do many more things than I could recognize in eight different number systems, and it cost $30.00.
But the first one I had was one of three in my night-school chemistry class. The professor said they were rich kids' toys and would never catch on.
Oh, and by the way, we had plenty of idiot teachers in the early 1970s and we all lived through it. The trick is to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and laugh at the chaff.
It's probably to our advantage for Churchill to contine spewing his venom, since the more he does and is defended by academia in doing it, the more liberal academia proves itself to be totally corrupt and hypocritical. After all, in the long run the observed excesses of Michael Moore and the MSM were major reasons we won the 2004 election.
The more we expose the Ward Churchill/Larry Summers cases, the more effectively we prove the total intellectual corruption and hypocracy of present liberal academia. To win this country back we've got to take on that institution. Those two cases and the contrast between them are a wonderful battering ram to do it.
And, even better, in the picture, bears a rather uncanny resemblence to John Kerry (or is it just the vacuous look that makes them resemble one another? Inquiring minds want to know...)
the infowarrior
I certainly understand where those who disagree with my post are coming from. By "Ignoring Him" I am talking about us ignoring him and this makes those nuts on the left look all the sillier.
Which is also a lie. He is a fraud and a liar. There is an article around here somewhere that proves he is has no Indian blood at all. In one interview he even admits it. He is NUTS!
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.