Churchill Vindicated?... pfff

In an article on Hawaii Reporter, Mark Burch claims that Ward Churchill has been vindicated:

Churchill was just recently vindicated. It was a moment of supreme irony. Last week, a news commentator on Fox was excoriating Churchill for the "little Eichmannns" comment, and in the very next segment, Elizabeth Holtzman was being interviewed. She is the chairwoman of the Interagency Working Group (IWG) that is trying to get the CIA to release the rest of their documents about employing Nazi war criminals. She dropped a bombshell: the CIA employed five of Eichmann's top advisors.

After taking the obligatory liberal shots at Fox News, Burch begins to build his case that those in the Trade Center did in fact deserve to burn to death. By connecting the CIA (which he has obviously mistaken for the OSS, seeing as though the CIA did not exist during Nazi rule) he has made the first "connection" in his argument. He ignore the fact that US and British intelligence worked with Nazis to organize, among other operations, the failed assasination attempt on Hilter and coup to overthrow the dictator. But these are but minor details to a liberal trying to make a point.

Facts be damned, Burch goes on to list members of the CIA who had any connection at all to Wall Street. At this point its "case closed" from Burch's viewpoint. US intelligence made contact with Nazis, there have been members of the CIA who have also worked on Wall Street, so the workers inhabiting the World Trade Center were complicite in the WWII war crimes of the Nazis, therefore deserving of the title "Little Eichmanns" and their deaths at the hands of terrorists.

Whewww... he really takes the reader for a rhetorical joy ride with that trail of connections. But youve gotta give it to the guy for his dedication to proving a point. Which was what again? Oh yeah, that one little phrase out of the volume of epithets used by Ward Churchill to label the victims of 9/11 was accurate. So I wonder what type of exhausting effort Mr. Burch would make to prove that US economy is built on the graves of millions.

The success of the stock market is built upon the rotting corpses of the victims of American economic imperialism, which number close to 6 million, that iconic number needed to designate mass murder a holocaust.

Hmm, he sure did wrap that up. Defending two words spoken by his great diety Ward Churchill is worthy of an entire article. But stating the US is to blame for mass murder of holocaust proportions is a matter of fact, and need only be justified by one sentence.

One must ask: would liberals throw a hissy fit, as they did in the case of Mr. Churchill, if anyone were to label Mr. Burch an anti-American?

UH sets date for Churchill lecture

I just recieved a press advisory from an ally of EpicNation (hat tip Stuart K. Hayashi). Professor Ward Churchill is to speak at University of Hawaii on Tuesday, February 22, at 7:00 PM in the Art Auditorium at UH. They have dubbed his lecture "Speaking Truth to Power: Academic Freedom in the Age of Terror"

"Age of Terror", is that reffering to Islamo-facsism, or a Republican president and majority in both houses of Congress? Here are a few telling excerpts from the press advisory:

During the height of the McCarthy era, when politicians and the press were conducting witch hunts for alleged subversives whose speech they labeled un-American, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said: Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

You know liberals are on shaky ground when they start pulling out the old "McCarthyism" card. The assertion that this controversy is akin to the McCarthy hearings is a false one, and also distorts the history involved. McCarthy targeted private citizens, not servants of the State. While some of McCarthy's intentions were good, he certainly crossed the line by trying to limit the expression of persons and institutions seperate of government. Churchill is not a private citizen (yet). The University of Colorado recieves both state and federal dollars. It is a public school, and therefore is ultimately subject to the will of the public. The University of Hawaii statement continue:

In this spirit, a coalition of University of Hawai`i faculty, students, and departments, along with a number of community organizations, has decided to afford Professor Churchill the First Amendment and academic freedom rights he has been denied at other institutions.

Which government's constitution are they reading that say's a person has the right to spew anti-American hate speech on the taxpayer's dime? (maybe France's) But this is typical of liberals; create a victim's status for those in their ilk who are challenged by the majority. Afterall, to liberals, there is nothing higher in the social pecking order than "Victim".

Also, this illusory suggestion that Ward Churchill has been labeled anti-American by his critics is laughable. The man's entire career has been based on the fact that he is a card carrying, chest thumping, "you can quote me on that!" anti-American. Churchill himself reject the notion that he is an American, labeling US government as "colonizers", and our American values "subterfuge". He proudly supports the seperatist movement of indian tribes from the United States. How much more "anti-American" can the guy get? Consider the following from Churchill's essay Suppression of Indigenous Sovereignty in 20th Century United States:

Ultimately, the issue can be resolved only on the basis of a logically/legally consistent determination of whether indigenous peoples actually constitute "peoples" in the legal sense. While the deliberately obfuscatory arguments entered on this matter by the U.S. and other nation-states have by this point thoroughly muddled the situation with respect to a host of untreatied peoples throughout the world, the same cannot be said concerning the treatied peoples of North America, most especially those within the United States. As was noted above, we have long since been recognized not only as peoples, but as nations, and are thereby entitled in existing law to enjoy the rights of such regardless of our geographic disposition vis-a-vis our colonizers.

When a person claims the right of sovereignty within the border of the United States, and refer to its people as colonizers, they are quite literally anti-American. Not anti-American in the Al Franken, Michael Moore, or Ted Kennedy sense of the word; but anti-American in the "I reject the sovereign authority of the United States" revolutionary wack-job sense of the word.

What flavor KoolAid are they serving in the University of Hawaii faculty lounge? We can assume its one of the Red flavors. (Uh oh, Red with a capital "R"; McCarthyism!)

University of Hawaii to offer a warm aloha to terrorist sympathizer

Militant anti-American Ward Churchill may be coming to my neck of the woods soon. Hawaii Reporter, who's founder and president Malia Zimmerman has proven to be quite the thorn in the side of Hawaii's Democratic party thugocracy, obtained a memo circulating among University of Hawaii (UH) professor's trying to raise money for Comrad Churchill's trip.

University of Hawaii professors have organized an aggressive fundraising effort to bring Ward Churchill, a highly controversial professor based at the University of Colorado and activist in the American Indian Movement, to lecture at the University’s Manoa Campus, according to an internal memo obtained by Hawaii Reporter.

Churchill, who prides himself on publishing inflammatory anti-American propaganda, came into the national spotlight in recent weeks for his declaration in a recently published essay that the victims killed and injured in the 9-11 attack on America were not "innocent."

Mr. Churchill, who also claims that American capitalism, not Saddam, was to blame for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, represents the neo-Marxism that infests the campus of UH. He will be in good company.

When Churchill isn't cheerleading for Islamo-fascism, he meets with murderous dictators in the Middle East, and moonlights as an academic hack and phony American Indian. Ann Coulter did some digging, and discovered the following:

In 1983, Churchill met with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and later felt it necessary to announce that his group, the American Indian Movement, "has not requested arms from the Libyan government." [...]

In light of the fact that Churchill's entire persona, political activism, curriculum vitae, writings and university positions are based on his claim that he's an Indian, it's rather churlish of him to complain when people ask if he really is one. But whenever he is questioned about his heritage, Churchill rails that inquiries into his ancestry are "absolutely indefensible."

Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eighth Indian "on a good day" to claiming he is "three-sixteenths Cherokee," to claiming he is one-sixty-fourth Cherokee through a Revolutionary War era ancestor named Joshua Tyner. (At least he's not posing as a phony Indian math professor.) [...]

In addition to calling Americans murdered on 9/11 "little Eichmanns," Churchill has said: "The U.S. Army gave blankets infected with smallpox to the Indians specifically intending to spread the disease."

Not only are the diseased-blanket stories cited by Churchill denied by his alleged sources, but the very idea is contradicted by the facts of scientific discovery. The settlers didn't understand the mechanism of how disease was transmitted. Until Louis Pasteur's experiments in the second half of the 19th century, the idea that disease could be caused by living organisms was as scientifically accepted as crystal reading is today. Even after Pasteur, many scientists continued to believe disease was spontaneously generated from within. Churchill is imbuing the settlers with knowledge that in most cases wouldn't be accepted for another hundred years.

Like I said, this guy will fit in perfectly at the University of Hawaii.

Ward Churchill: Wanna-be American Indian, wanna-be Che

Bang-bang, your dead

Another one bites the dust. This from NewsMax:

CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amidst the furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq.

The liberal media keeps setting them up, and bloggers keep knocking them down!

W's gonna keep them honest on this Social Security stuff

This from the Office of the Press Secretary (via Drudge):

Myth: Jonathan Weisman's Washington Post Story today (p A13), includes the headline that "Participants would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits," which is flat wrong. The article says workers who opt for personal accounts "would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system." This statement, unfortunately, is also flat wrong. Both the headline and this assertion are completely inaccurate. The White House is seeking a correction from the Washington Post.

Look's as though the President is going to slap the media in the mouth everytime they attempt to lie about Social Security reform. Little tip for the press over the coming months: let the Dems speak for themselves!