Back in January, 2004, after Janet Jackson's expos� during the SuperBowl halftime show, I posted a few reactionary blogs which caused a bit of an Aufruhr, particularly on BlogCritics.org, and on the site of a rather vulgar black woman known as "Tek." It seems that some took offense at my title: The Dark Teat. (I also posted an article entitled "No Teat Left Behind.")
Nursing lowland gorilla, in the wild.
The offense, chiefly, was focused on the fact that I used a pictorial illustration of a nursing female gorilla. (Indeed, the original title of my blog was "The Gorilla's Teat," which I changed.) This was misunderstood, by most, to mean that I was comparing Janet Jackson to a gorilla, even though I made no mention of such a comparison whatsoever. What I was doing was showing something that I knew most people would be very repulsed by, human sexuality associated directly with a gorilla, in order to express the degree of repulsion I felt Janet Jackson deserved for her crime of indecent exposure, her blantant intrusion into American homes through an unexpected, unapproved way on national television.
Janet Jackson, the great teat barer
I never said, in any way, that Janet Jackson in any way looked like a gorilla.
I'm happy to say, as of February, 2005, I have indisputable, living proof that Janet Jackson does not look like a gorilla, breast exposed or unexposed. My blogs on Janet Jackson were not inaccurate, nor distasteful (at least compared to her indecent public charade before the American family).
As of February, 2005, three different Caucasian women have filed suit in San Mateo Country Superior court, claiming their boss, Francine "Penny" Patterson, required them to bare their breasts before her 300-pound black ape named Koko. The women, Nancy Alperin, Kendra Keller, and now Iris Revera, have sued the Gorilla Foundation of Woodside, CA. (San Fransisco Bay area), claiming they were discriminated against, unfairly terminated, because they would not cooperate in the "exposure" of themselves to the animal.
Penny Patterson and her pet ape, Koko, who is
over thirty years old now.
Patterson claims that the showing their breasts to the gorilla, (a simian with a vocabulary of over 1,000 signs), would further aid in the human bonding process. (Now, whether Ms. Patterson, the famous treacher/trainer of the gorilla, has herself bonded in such a way, is not apparent in the suit.)
The point is, the breast baring was to be performed by white women, not black! Ms. Patterson did not hire Negro women for the job. She is a very experienced and knowledgable behavioral scientist. Had she seen any advantage of using a black woman for such bonding with Koko, she would have hired one, or several. Instead, she used Caucasian women, like herself.
So there you have it, complete, 100% proof that Janet Jackson does not resemble a gorilla in any way.
Janet Jackon, no resemblence to a gorilla
We rejoice to be able to provide the world with such remarkable and timely evidence of dissimilarity, and furthermore, we assert such evidence as the full exoneration of BadEagle.com, and the absolute refutation of any accusations or racist reactions to the integrity of BadEagle.com or of its benign intents.
(Well, perhaps Ms. Patterson didn't hire any black women because she didn't want to confuse the animal with any changes. She, a white woman, has worked with Koko for years. At this stage of developement in the teaching process, and the apparently recent requirement for the baring of breasts, could indicate some inovation in the gorilla's training, and to introduce a black woman's breast might simply have been to radical a change in the gorilla's expecations. Who knows? But then there might be a question as to why black women weren't used from the beginning. This would be answered by the fact that Patterson is white, and not only is the gorilla used to that appearance, but, I must say, it appears that the breast-baring stage of training is of late. Patterson cannot train the gorilla to become accustomed to black women at this stage. That would indeed be too confusing to the otherwise precocious primate.)
Finally, a word of cultural explanation for those still unconvinced of the innocence of the Janet Jackson blogs on this site. It has always been the American Indian custom to describe individual characters by likening them to animals of one sort or another. Everyone is familiar with the fact, too, that many Indians have names taken from differen animals (for example, "Bad Eagle," no less). Though I never thought, nor ever meant to imply, that Janet Jackson in any way looked or acted like a gorilla, what if I did? What's wrong with that? What's hurful about that? An animal's an animal. I don't think the point is how it looks, but how it acts. What are its strengths? What are its characteristics? Indians traditionally associate with certain animal powers. Perhaps is was a culture clash for me to create even a suggested association of another race with an animal. Of course, culture clash is what America is all about, no?
And, too, there are no apes on the North American continent. How could I have made my illustration? Janet is in fact "African" American, or, is that just a political term? What animal could she then be associated with here in America? Would it have been more acceptable to use the illustration of a little brown bat (myotis lucifugus), which, according to Grover Morill Allen (Bats, 1839) is among the only mammalian species in North America that nurses it's young with a pair of breast nippples? (But then, who could imagine bestiality with a bat?)
Myotis myotis. Animal became enraged at exposure while nursing
its young. Unable to obtain view of nipples.
Well, enough of this. Two things are completely obvious: 1) what Janet Jackson did was as morally repulsive as bestiality (in my opinion); 2) Janet Jackson simply does not resemble a gorilla (nor does Frederika Whitfield, Suzanne Malvo, and a host of other "black" women!) What is obvious beyond that, my readers shall have to inform me. My original blogs had nothing to do with visual appearances, but character and behavior.
I do not see racism in this at all. For those that do, please define racism before you accuse me of it. I have found that most people who seriously accuse others of racism are themselves guilty of it. This is the case with Ward Churchill, a "self-hating" white man, they say. The Indian-breed leaders of AIM, like Clyde and Vernon Bellecourt, Dennis Banks, etc., decry Churchill's behavior now because he is white, even though they have the same anti-American sentiments he does. I say this is racism, no? Of the purest order.
More fraud has been discovered in the uncharitable Churchill saga. It is stunning, how such a life could have evolved, with such professionalism in support of it.
The University of Illinois at Springfield (formerly Sangamon State University) declares that Churchill's records show a Bachelor of Arts granted in 1974, and a Master of Arts in 1975. What was his major in both degrees? Native American Studies? Ethnic Studies? Even Social Studies? No. Communications. This is terribly interesting. It accounts for his position in the military, where he was trained to operate film-strip machines and movie projectors (noted in yesterday's blog). But it certainly doesn't explain how he would wind up teaching in an ethnic studies department, and even end up chairman. Who all approved of Dean Todd Gleeson's decision to appoint Churchill?
The real Ward Churchill
As we know, Churchill got is "honorary" tribal card from the Keetooah Band of Cherokee in 1990. He got tenure in 1991 from the Unversity of Colorado, and then got an honorary doctorate from Alfred University, a school in New York. He was a commencement speaker there in 1992, and given an honorary doctorate in Humane Letters (emphasis on humane!).
Honorary man, this Ward Churchill. Indeed. Honorary everything, in reality a fake.
Sangamon State was once an "alternative" education facility, of radical Left intent. For a time it gave no grades to students, like many radical, communist-styled, private educational institutions, but instead issues personal evaluations. It welcomed (even advertised for) students with radical goals. Illinois took over the institution in 1995, much to the dismay of the radical staff, who to this day continue to protest the "corporate" style imposed upon them by the "right wing" businessmen of the state. State education as 'right wing'? That's how far to the Left Sangamon was.
Alfred University (western New York) is also a radical institution. It was founded in 1836, and one of the first coed educational institutions in the country. Its MFA in ceremics was rated No.1 in the country by US News & World Report in its last four reviews. That tells you something. Where there is pottery, there is the Left, with it's New Agers, Peace-niks, and general population of American haters!
Interestingly, Alfred University was founded by Seventh-Day Baptists. That's right, Baptists. They observed Saturday as the sabbath, not Sunday. AU's web site however declares this a "liberal" position, along with the admission of women, Negroes, and American Indians. Well, the gender/ethnic business might be called liberal, but sabbatarianism? That's the pith of ancient conservatism. As a matter of fact, some of these very Baptists brought their sabbatarianism into what later became the Seventh-Day Adventists. Now, are Adventists going to be referred to as "liberal?" Hard call.
It was designed to be a place to train teachers. But, like many such institutions, considered radical or liberal in its day, fell into the more seamy sides of liberalism, and in the '70's, that mean only communist, anti-American values. Churchill was a most appropriate commencement speaker, and a perfect carrier of the Alfred University "honorary" doctorate.
So, how did the University of Colorado not see all of this? Why did they hire a man educated in one field to not only teach but to become chairman, of another field? What are the rules of hiring for the University of Colorado? What kind of academic/professional standards are they operating on?
But is this fakery isn't enough, there is one more aspect, even worse than his apparently fake claim to be Indian. He's a fake "Indian" artist as well! Michell Malkin, American ethnic authority of late, has been keeping tabs on Churchill. Apparently Churchill has faked Indian art. He mirrored a work by Thomas E. Mails, and sold it as his own. Churchill also faked another Indian work, a historical photo by Charles M. Bell. Churchill did an ink sketch of Bell's "Little Big Man."
There is apparently no depth of fraud into which Churchill is not willing to sink. Of course, there is the old AIM accusation that he is an FBI agent, and infiltrator of AIM, which would explain why they say they've always been against him. Spies often develop professional "schizophrenia." But that AIM story is endless, and suffice it to say, the old AIMsters are all in the same cell, so to speak, for violent anti-Americanism and murderous intent. They're no different from Churchill, and many of them are less than half-breeds themselves. AIM was a white Communist front of the '70's, and whites really ran it.
As I have said, the Churchill crisis is not about free speech. It's about fraud. The universities of America simply cannot espouse such fraud, pay it so well, and expect to remain untouched by the law. Heads will roll before this is over. Churchill's might not be among them, but, if the public, and particularly the state of Colorado, do not demand severe reprimand for someone, we can simply write off the American university as what is, and has been, for some time. Ken Hamblin said during my radio inteview with him in 2001, "The university is the last Communist stronghold in the free world.
After the Unviersity of Hawaii speech Churchill gave earlier this week, the Honolulu Star quoted him as admitting he was not Indian. "Let's cut to the chase; I am not." But today, the Honolulu Star issued a "correction," saying that the paper had misquoted Churchill.
This is what Churchill said, on tape: "Is he an Indian? We really care. We're trying to protect the rights of Indians to divine for themselves, say this circle of flies in the form of white reporters circling a manure pile like it's of all consequential importance. Cut to the chase on that."
In other words, Churchill is trying to say the question of his Indianness is a non-issue. The Star correction further quotes, "Churchill went on to say that he is an associate member of the Keetoowah tribe and that associates are enrolled in the band after their genealogy has been vetted by the enrollment office. He said that he is less than one-quarter Indian, so he does not qualify to be a full member."
I spoke with Keetoah secretary Marilyn Craig, who said plainly Churchill is not a member, nor ever has been. He was given a honorary membership, along with some VIPs like Bill Clinton, in 1990. It was about Indians honoring a few whites, not about those whites being "Indian." These records were all destroyed in 1996, when the Chief John Ross decontinued the program. Such honorary memberships were all revoked.
Churchill is lying on this point, openly, loudly, and purposely.
What else is he lying about? He claimed to be a big, tough VietNam soldier, but, he wasn't, according to the latest research from MensNewsDaily. "Depite his public claim (in a 1987 Denver Post interview) of having been a paratrooper (Airborne qualified) who conducted long-range reconnaissance patrols (LRRPs; extremely dangerous missions conducted by some of the most elite soldiers in the US Army) hunting North Vietnamese in Vietnam during and after the Tet Offensive of 1968, and despite his claim that he was a point man in an infantry combat unit, was in fact trained only as a jeep driver and projectionist (he was trained to operate film-strip machines and movie projectors), according to official documentation from the National Personnel Records Center, the US repository for military records."
He lied about the 1837 Small Pox Epidemic in his "academic research" paper, and has also been formally accused of plagarism.
Maybe he's also lied about even having an education. Maybe he doesn't in fact have a bachelor and master's degree. Who knows? BadEagle will investigate that. [Note: Churchill does have a BA and a Masters, and even an honorary Doctorate. Wait till I published "in what?!" Invesetigation conducted this afternoon.]
In the meantime, rest assured that Churchill is well funded--with more than a 100K annual salary from the University of Colorado. Apparently, he's in with the Soros crowd. [More and more bloggers are noting this connection. Try Moonbat Central, the new FrontPage blog.]
Blogger DANEgerous has noted the international terrorist associations Churchill has maintained. Churchill wants right up there with those world class rogues. Claiming to be Indian has helped him along.
Of course, Soros supports the Iranian mullahs, too.
It's all one wonderfull family. Internationals like to use American Indians, too, in order to validate their anti-Americanism.
The man is a chronic pretender, and has made a lucrative career out of it. It is a stunning display of just how powerful the Indian image is. It was important enough to the University of Colorado to pay a fake Indian to curse America, and to validate his curse by claiming Indian blood. The Deans are embarrassed to admit what they did. Churchill was hired under Dean of Arts and Sciences Charles R. Middleton (1988-1996). The present Dean, Todd Gleeson, hasn’t said a word about Churchill’s hiring, or much about his possible firing. Gleeson was the one who appointed Churchill chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department.
Univerisity of Colorado's Dean Todd Gleeson.
How much did he know about Churchill? For how
much is he responsible in the present issue?
Perhaps public universities should not be allowed to accept private funding. Or, perhaps the entire educational system of America should be privatized. Perhaps the government should have nothing to do with education, and then Churchill could have his well-paid "free speech" at a nice little Communist college.
The rest of the students in America could have their free speech too, and get a much more truthful education, not indoctrinated by career liars like Ward Churchill.
The Ward Churchill crisis is not about free speech. It's about whether or not your enemy has the right to destroy you. The "free speech" issue is a smoke screen.
So a fake Indian gets 100K for cursing America. If he were fired, or in any way diminished, professionally, he would still have free speech. He just would be paid so well for what he says. Firing Churchill is not taking away his free speech.
Ward Churchill, in the pith of puerility,
fake Indian mascot for the professional
misfits of America.
I was dismissed, as an poorly paid adjunct professor, for speaking my mind. I can still speak my mind. I just don't get paid for it.
No one can take away free speech. This is a very false issue in the Churchill matter.
Besides that, what about the free speech of those people who want Indian mascots, logos, and names on their athletic teams? What about their free speech? The Indian activists, like Churchill, call that "hate speech."
Imagine, Churchill curses America, but that's not properly called "hate speech." The highschool mascot name, The Nyack Indians, on the other hand, is vicious and hurftul, creating a hostile, violent environment! A college professor can anathematized his country, but, a local highschool can't have an Indian image for a logo.
The Nyack Indian logo, before it was removed from the the school.
Nyack Indians once inhabited the shores of the Hudson. The people of
today's Nyack take great pride in their "ancestors." They're a lot more
"Indian" than Ward Churchill.
Outrageous. We should never give up on our efforts to correct such pathetic irony. Look at what's happened in Nyack, NY. The people have formed the Nyack Indian Foundation, which now has a new website. They are determined not to be ruled by "communist" authorities in the educational system. They are determined to stand for there rights.
The Nyack Indian Foundation website tells the whole story how a few tyrants overrulled the public. The site is a reference book, a "how to" guide for any community resisting tyrants. It gives the whole story of how the school boards and superintendents manoeuver, and how the public can counter those moves.
Free speech? What does the Ward Churchill issue have to do with free speech? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The man has free speech. It's people like the community in Nyack, who are denied the 75 year old tradition of their home community, who don't have free speech. Their high school Indian logo was removed, against the community will.
Making an issue out of free speech, for Ward Churchill, is an insult to very community in America who has been told what to do by some tryannical school superintendent.
Churchill should be fired because he is a liar and a fake. He'll still have his free speech. But, the people of Nyack don't have their Indian logo back on their school yet. Until that happens, I say, firing Churchill for what he has said would not be unfair. Firing him for advocating anti-Americanism would be wise, as well. Personally, I think there ought to be an Indian warrior head on every school in the country! That would be freedom. And honor! Forget Ward Churchill.
Robert Redford's life is really like a Greek tragedy. He is a hero in his own play, but, one searches for cause, the triumph, indeed the antagonist.
Born in 1937, in Santa Monica, California, his was not a tranquil life. He had some scrapes with the law even as a young teenager. He even spent a few nights in jail for vandalism. He drank a lot, even as a youngster. His mother died in 1955, right after Robert graduated from high school. (One could easily get the impression that his was not a particularly happy home.) He never had dreams of Hollywood, though, and never thought of Los Angeles as a haven of anything.
Robert Redford
He says he saw the times (the 1950's) as all reactionary to WWII. He seems to have resented the fact that his family was poor (so he says), and they didn't seem to participate in the great economic surge that developed after the war. "Concrete replaced grass," he decrys, looking back, like a sulking adolescent, masking his envy in the guise of Nature worship.
He won a baseball scholarship to Colorado University, which he quickly lost due to his own drinking problem. He says his family could never have afforded to send him to CU, and he emphasizes the scholarship aspect. Then he spent some time at the Pratt Institute in New York, but doesn't say who financed that.
For a while, Redford wanted to be a painter, a real artist. He went to Europe. (Again, who arranged this? Who financed this?) He lived in there for 18 months, in Florence and in Paris, and says it was a true bohemian life, one of penury and hardship. (He also says he had no talent for it.) He says he lived with "highly politicised" students, and was often challenged about America, and never knew what to say.
He says, however, that this time in Europe really influenced him. It's pretty clear that it encouraged him further in his isolated, individualistic life. He came back to the United States, and spent time at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, in New York, studying acting--the ultimate hide-away for alienated folk in the world, the haven for severe "individuals." For a time, he lived in New York and in the home of his new bride, Provo, Utah. He obviously didn't want to lose touch with his resentment of capitalistic success. Interestingly, his first wife, Lola Van Wagenen, was a Mormon, an epitomical social example of the isolated, non-belonging types. The Utah Mormons were outsted from Illinois over 130 years ago, because of their unwillingness to be part of the larger social environment.
By the 1960's Redford was buying up land in Utah, developing a ski resort and the Sundance Institute. Redford has always had the double life, of capitolizing in capitalism, yet openly decrying it, defying it, and creating a "nature" refuge for himself as an environmentalist. He has always professed great poverty in earlier life, but somehow was also able to travel, go to school, and buy land. Always working hard for success available through free enterprise, yet openly decrying it.
But, let's reconsider that European stint, which he says saved him from becoming a brainwashed Republican. What was happening in Florence, in Paris, in the 1950's?
Florence, of course, was part of the Axis powers. Italy had had to unite with Hitler, or be destroyed by him. For one thing, the Florence Agreement of 1950 was a "communist" concept UNESCO forwarded, that educational, scientific, and cultural materials should be freely shared amongst the nations. In other words, no one should get a head. No one should have an advantage, even if that nation created its own advantages by the genius of its own cultural values. Is that the kind of thinking that Redford picked up over there? No super powers? No room for America's greatness?
France, of course, had shown no loyalty to anyone but herself. The usual position. During WWII, citizens waved Nazi flags when the Germans barged through town, and American flags when the Yanks marched in. To this day, France has remained a narcissistic political entity. Shall we say, "individualistic?" Is this what appealed to Redford in Paris?
France was recovering from WWII, and also in the agonies of "nationalization." France was dependent on it's coal industry for the vital energy of the nation. Who would control it? The government? or the companies? Thus, the communist approach trumped the terrors (I should say, "anxieties") of the free market.
Were Europeans also reacting at all to America's involvement in Korea? America had emerged from WWII as guardian of the world, both hemispheres. Was old Europe just envious of England's "independent" son? You'd think Redford would idolize America, seeing his own life has always played out the theme of independence.
The details of Redfords associations during his short stay in Europe are not readily available, but it is clear that he wishes to attribute his "independence" from America on this basis. He wants to have support. He wants authenticity for his extended adolescent rebellion against his father country, shall we say. He must justify his position.
Redford seems to have combined two things: actual capitalism and professed communism. This is called dissembling. We shouldn't say hypocrisy, because Redford has been consistent in his isolationism, his individualism, his rebellion. But it is dissembling, presenting one issue as a disguise for another.
Redford is like a glorified misfit, a triumphant angry kid. But, who backed him? Who provided the money? Who developed the Redford phenomenon? He's no actor, handsome as he is. He's been willingly used by larger forces than himself, forces which, in his way of thinking, supported what he believed in. He's sincere in that. I don't think he ever "sold out." I think he believes what he believes, not for the money. He simply united with those who also believe what he believes, but have money to makes things happen.
Robert Redford
Redford is very much a hero in his own person. But, his own person is contrary sort of thing. He simply learned to "capitalize" on it. He's more American than lots of Americans, despite himself.
Great news from FrontPageMagazine.com There are two new web sites connected to the main site: 1) DiscoverTheNetwork.org, and 2)Moonbat Central: Hunting the Radical Snark. They are related.
DiscoverTheNetwork, sub-titled, A Guide to the Political Left, is a huge display of the entire Left political phenomenon, as operative today. This is an invaluable resource for those willing and able to pursue it. The organizations behind the Left, the funding, the network, etc., are all carefully displayed. This is a unique political resource, heretofor unavailable. We owe a great deal of gratitude for this FrontPage effort. It's effects will be far reaching, no doubt.
MoonbatCentral is an embedded blog on the home page of DiscoverTheNetwork. Moobat Central is featured (today) at the top right hand corner of FrontPageMagazine.
Interestingly, despite the fact that I have not published a single article on Churchill for FrontPage, Moonbat Central notes some significant points about my position on not only the Churchill issue, but also the Soro-Redford issue.
There are two blog entries, both of which were posted today, Feb. 17:
Fake Indians, Yes, Real Indians, No!, noting the fact that Churchill got a six-figure salary for being a fake Indian and cursing America, and I (the real Indian) got fired for blessing America;
Robert Redford Feeds at the Soros Trough, not only noting my exposure of this on my FrontPage article, but also the important fact that I was on this story over a month ago. Interesting blog, this MoonbatCentral.
The final comments:
O’Reilly Weighs In
On Thursday, February 10, Yeagley found himself on the O’Reilly Factor. For some reason, O’Reilly focused only on Ward Churchill. He saved the Soros-Redford topic for the following night, when Yeagley was not there. O'Reilly's guests for that segment – Capital Research Center president Terry Scanlon and Byron York of the National Review – did a fine job, of course, but Yeagley's absence from the set was palpable.
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit," Harry Truman remarked. Yeagley may not have been on the set to savor his victory Friday night, but the fact remains, after crying out in the wilderness for a month, he’s finally got Soros and Redford on the run.
"[W]e asked Soros to come on [the show]," said O'Reilly last Friday. "He's in France. What a shock. And Redford's out of the country, too. We don't know where he is. But I wouldn't be surprised if he's in France."
I guess Harry Truman said it all, then.
Perhaps what happened to me, an Indian, at OSU-OKC (and OU), being dismissed and denied opportunity to teach because of my patriotism, will in the end be the one arrowhead that pierces the heart of Ward Churchill's fraudenlent career. Nothing that I ever invisioned, of course. I was just doing what I thought was right. I suppose one never knows the far-reaching results of a 'lick for the right,' as John Wayne said in The Alamo. He was playing the part of Davie Crockett, decribing to Col. Travis what the word "republic" meant to him. It was a touching moment, indeed. That's one movie script that ought to be taught in schools!
John Wayne, patriot, more than acting.
Take a swing at wrong. Uplift the right. Who knows what might come of it.
David Horowitz was on Bill O'Reilly last night, Tuesday, February 15. He had just spoken at the University of Colorado the day before (Valentine's Day). The O'Reilly show pointed out that two different papers in Denver had quoted Horowitz as saying two different things. The Denver Post said Horowitz said that Churchill should not be fired for what his 9-11 comments. Free speech must be protected. That is true. However, the other paper said Horowitz said Churchill should be fired. Bill confronted Horowitz about these two different stories. Horowitz made it very clear that Churchill should be fired, not for the anti-American things he's said, but for impersonating an Indian.
This I find curious. It may seem reasonable in the private world of academia, to fire a professor for his false identity. It may seem perfectly just in the artificial environment of the university. But, in the over-all situation in America, no one has been sued or disciplined for impersonating an Indian.
In fact, the opposite is true. People get tribal enrollment, federal recognition, "reservation" land, casinos, and great wealth, very quickly--all for impersonating Indians. Connecticut has witnessed this, and today California is overrun with impersonators. The casino boom is almost out of control, and places like the Bay area (San Francisco) are moving for moratoriums on any new federally recognized tribes.
Anyone can imitate an Indian. Black, white, Philippino, Indonesian, it's all been done.
The argument against Churchill might seem appropriate for the university situation, but, look at the whole country, the whole picture. Unless all these fake Indians with "federal recognition" can be disciplined, unless their Indian identity can be "revoked," I don't see how the accusation against Churchill can stand. It should, and all the other fake Indians should be disciplined, too.
Perhaps the matter of Churchill's fakery can be made an example. Perhaps if he goese down because of it, it will help put the brakes on all the fakes. We can hope for the best here. I'm simply saying, it is not acceptable, to me, anyway, to fire Churchill for being fake, unless all the pop-up casino tribes, like the Mashantuckets in Connecticut, are 'fired' as well, from Indian country. They are not part of it. In fact, they are less part of it than Churchill is.
It's only a matter of time, now. Ward Churchill is over. Yet, in the name of "free speech," which in his case is hate speech, he still may keep his university position. But what is "over" is any confidence or trust in him, or anything he says. His claim to be Indian was false from the start. His 'professional' research has been found faulty. All the reporters have dug into him, deeply. He's seems to be rotten through and through. There is more coming out, too, on his Weathermen connections back in the 1970's. He apparently helped train the 'American' terrorists.
Interestingly, the Leftist media is not sparing Churchill. (No paper is more liberal than the Denver Post. The Denver Post has defended him, but also cannot resist exposing him.) Why would they not spare him? They believe in what he believes.
It seems they may be more concerned now about the 2008 election, then being the slightest bit consistent themselves. They're using Churchill as a self-cleansing apparatus. Condemning him makes them look more American and more patriotic. The 'fake' Indian charge was a real opportunity for them. That was pure fakery on Churchill's part, and they've all seized on it. While Leftist newsmen and politicians have made exactly the same condemnations of America, saying that America's foreign policies brought on the 9-11 attacks, the fact that Churchill was a fake Indian seems to make these Leftists think they are something different, something better than he is.
In the fury of last week, I wrote a number of articles on Churchill, none of which were published. As of today, I am posting each of them, one by one, under the Bad Eagle Speaks forum, under the Patritotism:Politics Category on my web site. The first of these articles is "The End of Ward Churchill."
I have a issue particularly with the so-called Indian "leaders" who are openly denouncing Churchill with such vehemence. I blame them for not exposing him, or for not making the effort to expose him, long before. There are details in the history of this, especially pertaining to the American Indian Movement, which everyone needs to be aware of. My articles will put a story together that indicts AIM with very serious charges of untrustworthiness.
University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill, right, hugs American Indian Movement leader Russell Means after he introduced Churchill for his address to students at Memorial Student Center in Boulder, Colo., Tuesday night, Feb. 8, 2005. (AP Photo/Ed Andrieski)
I was particulary frustrated to see that Russell Means was willing to associate so closely with Churchill, at such a time. The two have been associated for three decades, and were both instrumental in setting up the Colorado AIM chapter. But Means has moved on to more important things, like trying to do something for Indian people. I will in the near future post about his new constitution for the Oglala Sioux Nation. It will be shown that Means has surrounded himself by white "Indian" activists for years, using their brains, their influence, their power, etc. Yet, Means is not hooked into the visceral anti-Americanism quite like they are. But, this is a different issue...
For now, suffice it to say, I will not sit idle while the issue of free speech is used as a cloak to cover the failure of AIM, the failure of Indian people to control their "leaders" and those false images those "leaders" create for Indian people.
Of all the things I said on Bill O'Reilly's The Factor last night (February 10), probably the most controversial will be my opening statement: "Indians don't care about Ward Churchill." Why controversial? Because all the Indians on the Indian websites and newspapers have vociferously denounced Churchill. "Is there a consensus?" O'Reilly had asked. I still say yes. I still say Indian people don't care.
So, who are "the Indians?" That's the underlying issue, for Indians. Is it the common Indian people, or the professional Indians with a voice in media? The professionals are all liberal, Leftist, and hardly represent Indian people. The university Indians are professional Leftists. They have their own careers. None of these people represent Indian people.
No one "represents" Indian people. I don't, either. "The people" are psychologically independent. They laugh at so-called leaders, most of the time. Most people out there in America do not know about real Indian people, in Indian environments.
These Leftists who will criticize what I said are just as ant-American as Ward Churchill! Just because they have an opportunity to denounce him for his fake Indianness, just because they declare their "compassion" for the victims of 9-11, doesn't mean they aren't just as Communist as he is. They share exactly the same sentiments. America is bad. Indians must forever lament.
Anyone who knows anything about Churchill has known he's fake. Indians have known it for 30 years, especially the "professional" Indians. So where have then been? Why have they let him get by with his chicanery for 30 years? This is too little, too late, as far as I'm concerned. Their protest of Churchill is more fake than his Indianness.
I've prepared several articles on this matter, and I will post them forthwith.
And remember Betty Ann Gross? The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux woman who was interviewed by Sports Illustrated, March 4th, 2002? Remember the mascot issue? All the professional Indians said Indian people hate the mascots. The mascots harm Indian people. What did Betty Ann say? "There's a near total disconnect between Indian activists and the native American population on this issue." Sports Illustrated, conducting the only professional, scientific survey (by Peter Harris Research Group), reported 83% of Indian people were not offended, and did not wish to see mascots and logos removed.
So much for professional Indian activists, university Indians, and Indian "leaders" and their role as representing American Indian people.
The Indian people represent themselves. What I said to Bill O'Reilly is true. Indian people don't care about Ward Churchill. I'll not let these professional Indians get by with their chicanery. They've always known Churchill was white. Just because he makes a statement or two over the top, doesn't mean these Indian activists aren't just like him. They also have thrived, professionally, on their anti-Americanism. They accusing him of being a fake Indian doesn't mean they're patriots. Condemning for saying cruel and savage things about the 9-11 victims doesn't mean they love the country.
_______________________________________________
See Dr. Yeagley tonight (Feb.10) on FOXNews Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor" 8:00 pm Eastern, 11:00 pm Eastern. Bill and Dr. Yeagley briefly discuss Ward Churchill.
___________________________________________
David Horowitz says Ward Churchill should not be fired from the faculty of the University of Colorado. Despite Churchill's venomous anti-Americanism, Horowitz says free speech is more important, and that firing Churchill would set "a bad precedent."
David Horowitz
In his FrontPageMagazine article today, Horowitz blames the American university system, and its controllers, for the Churchill predicament. Howoritz thinks the error lies with them. To fire Churchill would jeopardize all professors, and this would be worse than simply enduring the insult of someone like Churchill on the university campus.
Horowitz calls for the university to simply provide true freedom and true balance of views.
"The remedy for this situation is not to purge the Ward Churchills from academic faculties. Their ideas are by now entrenched in the university curriculum and cannot be stamped out by firing an individual even if that were advisable (which it is not). They need to be confronted intellectually. Their scholarly incompetence needs to be exposed, and students need to be presented with an alternative view of history that is closer to reality."
As we all know, however, particularly out-spoken constitutional "patriot" professors like myself, this just doesn't happen.
Howoritz says "The real problem is that there is no such diversity at the University of Colorado at Boulder today. In the present academic system, conservatives are as rare as unicorns, and have an almost impossible barrier to overcome in order to get hired. That is because search and hiring committees are composed of professors like Ward Churchill. That is the problem that the regents of the University of Colorado (and similar institutions) need to begin to address, now."
It will never happen. The law to protect students from being "offended" are still in place. No one can contradict the political correctness already established by law. If a student choses to be offended at something a professor says, a legal suit is in the wings. Lawyers await with drool.
Intellectual diversity is an ideal, and far from reality. Private schools offer the only hope of true freedom of thought. I think it is important to be clear on the state university issue, however, and we can thank Mr. Horowitz for his statements, indeed his life labor, to correct the university conditions.
However, if I may be so bold as to assert, I do not believe the kind of rhetoric of Ward Churchill represents intellectual diversity at all. I do not believe the state university should provide opportunity for America's enemies to express themselves, especially to young, impressionable minds. The concept of intellectual diversity should never be understood as an opportunity for destructive influences to foster animosity toward America.
Even if I myself, an American Indinan patriot, were given a position juxtaposing Churchill, in the same department, it would not balance the influence. Whenever the state gives tax-supported opportunity for the enemy of the state to express itself, the concept of intellectual diversity is crippled and moot. The public is insulted, and the country is weakened. Mixing poison with truth blurs the whole concept of the country.
Personally, I think public universities should be dismantled completely. The private sector, with a variety of institutions, could better engender the ideal of intellectual diversity. If sectors of the public want communist institutions, let them have them, at their own expense. Let them deal with their own accreditation problems. Let students attend such institutions if they want, and only if they want.
If the idea of teaching American constitutional patriotism is considered imbalanced, then the case is hopeless. The enemy forever holds a place in the development of the culture. The enemy has the advantage in the future. If love of America cannot be taught unless hatred of America is taught along side it, then there is no point in either being taught in the name of intellectual diversity. Such diversity is nothing more than anti-Americanism itself.
Ward Churchill, from AP slide show. Known as a non-Indian among Indians, Churchill "became" Indian before the American public by virtue of his anti-Americanism. A terrible blight on the image of the true American Indian. Paid for by anti-American whites, of course.
Ward Churchill is white, always has been, and American Indian Movement leaders have always known it. He became "Indian" by virtue of his anti-Americanism, that's all. He got by with it because university Leftists were pleased to have such an articulate traitor on campus.
Ward Churchill
The internet is inundated about now with articles about Churchill's personal history (as much of it as can be obtained). You can find out about his fake claims, his publications, etc. It's all there.
Ward Churchill
What most people aren't talking about is the AIM story behind him. It all goes back to the 1973 'occupation' of Wounded Knee, in South Dakota. Rough days, indeed. It was like the national debut of AIM. (Vernon Bellecourt claims to have founded AIM in 1968). Anna Mae Aquash , "intiimate" friend of Dennis Banks, was murdered, it is believed, because she was FBI informant. It was a mess. In the fury of it all, Ward Churchill and Russell Means accused the Bellecourt brothers, Vernon and Clyde, of ordering the murder of Anna Mae.
Anna Mae Pictou Aquash
Churchill, as well as Means, has been involved in the inner conflicts of AIM from the beginning. AIM has had nothing but inner conflicts. It's all about power and money, of course, same for all radical groups.
These days, there's a new division in AIM. There are the International Confederation of Autonomous Chapters of AIM. The Colorado AIM chapter is actually one of these. These claim to have no association with the Grand Council of AIM, or the Bellecourts, specifically. Churchill claims a name in the Colorado Chapter.
Now, the Bellecourts, and Dennis Banks, current chairman of AIM, denounce Churchill. But they are "Chippewa," (Ojibwa, or Ashinabe) Indians. Russell Means, formerly associated with Churchill, is Sioux. The Chippewa/Sioux wars have been going on for three centuries now! That's the real dispute underneath the fury now over Churchill. The old AIMsters don't care anything about Churchill's 911 statements, or his anti-Americanism. They share the same sentiments. They're just being racist, in a way. They don't want a white man sharing their anti-Americanism. or getting more fame and fortune out of it.
Churchill, however, is really only a European trader, with loyalty to no nationality. He deftly manoeuvers himself through the AIM inter-tribal wars, taking every possible personal advantage. He really has no respect for anyone.
It's all about weilding that power and authority that comes with being "Indian." What a racket. Anti-American for pay, in the name of being Indian.
The University of Colorado paid Churchill over $100K a year for it, and he's white. That's how important it is to a university.
On the other hand, Oklahoma State Unversity (OKC) had a real Indian, who tried to teach American patriotism. They fired him.
Robert Redford believes he is an American patriot. Considering his devotion to Communist leaders, like Che Guevara, Fidel Casto, and other such socio-political luminaries, one must question what "America" Redford feels this patriotism for.
In a Los Angeles Times op-ed (December 2, 2002) Redford makes pretty clear his America doesn't include George Bush, or anyone connected with the current Bush administration. He vehemently condemns Gail Norton, Secretary of the Interior, as well as, and anyone connected with the energy policies. Redford is a dramatic environmentalist. That would certainly seem appropriate, in and of itself. He's even said that protecting the environment is the true meaning of patriotism. Protecting the environment he equates with national defense.
Robert Redford, in earlier years.
So, why would he foster relationships with communists? Why would he fondle the ideology of tyranny?
According the the Canadian Free Press, Redford has served on honorary boards of such eminent globalist organizations as Michael Gorbachev's Gorbachev Foundation of North America, which, of course, claims to be a proponent of "democracy." Gorbachev also created Global Green USA in 1993. Never renouncing Communism, Gorbachev simply understands democracy as a form of Communism, as do many Democrats in America. Socialism, they like to call it, meaning, the government takes care of everyone--and everything.
Well, Redford might be concerned about the environment, but, he seems more terribly concerned about who controls it. That's where his "patriotism" runs awry. First of all, his assumption that Communism is healthier for the environment (a position implied by his political associations) is utterly unfounded. Secondly, his preference for Communists clearly indicates that the America of his imagination is not the America of the Declaration of Independence, nor of that of the United States Constitution. Redford doesn't like the American government, apparently. What else can be concluded from his statements and more importanly, his associations?
His patriotism is without form. He could as easily be a patriot of Sri Lanka. He could love their trees, their water, their air. If their government was a good environmentalist government, by his standards, he'd just as well be a patriot there. He has apparently no special regard for the United States Constitution, but just the trees.
This is quite serious. Environmentalism becomes a mascot for anti-Americanism. In that special, revealing article in Britain's communist net rag, Guardian Unlimited, "American Dreamer," Redford says that as an actor he was afraid of being treated like the object in his films. And he didn't want to act like an object, and finally, he didn't want to become the object. He has always consciously kept on the outside.
Is this why, having played so many classic American roles, he's fostered underneath that such intense anti-American sentiments? Is this his form of "balance?" "I was cautious about being taken by things that could destroy you," Redford said. So, he makes a career off of Americanism (which could destroy him?), a career both ideologically and financially, but personally identifies with anti-American values. This is sad, really.
But, environmentalism is a good thing, in itself. This is a healthy "sub" identity for Redford. If gives scope to reality for him, apparently. He's definitely not the characters he has protrayed. We could leave it here, but for his insistence on makeing films about people who are actually like him, the individualists, the anti-Americans. It's like, therapy by film making.
Redford, director of The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000),
another one of those all-American image films, the kind Redford
makes sure he doesn't imitate in real life.
Finally, it's making patriotism mean anti-Americanism, in the name of the environment. Deft and daring, but tragic. Redford is a man without a country. He's succeeded in escaping identification with his roles, but also with his nation. Or so it seems.