Churchill: Eating his "own"

It just gets better doesn't it? Remember how I claimed Churchill would at some point turn on his accusers? Well, here's an interesting spin on that:

The Rocky Mountain News is reporting that Churchill is now attacking the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, who last week revoked his honoray membership in their organization.

Churchill claims their decision to ban him is "categorically untrue"...interesting.

Also, at one point Churchill made a claim that his MOTHER was part of this tribe (see link above). Churchill, in speeches around the country, typically opens with the words, "I bring you greetings from the elders of the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee, my mother's people."

Here's the best part:

In an escalating war of words between the professor and the Tahlequah, Okla.-based Cherokee band, to whom he has long staked his status as an American Indian, Churchill said the tribe has the right "to disenroll me. . . . What it does not have a right to do is falsify history at its own convenience."

Yeah, only Churchill has the right to falsify history at his own convenience as he has done in the past. Shame on anyone else getting involved in his exclusive racket.

Churchill's response to the Rocky Mountain News: And as for any challenges to his tribal membership, he wrote, "Go ahead, make my day."

Churchill: Glutton for punishment, I guess. Let's see what the Rocky does with this threat...

Churchill: Was batting .75, now .5

Yesterday's post was about Churchill's response to the CU investigative committee, and in one portion of his response, he claimed Indian Heritage on 3 of 4 federally recognized statutes (the one that still throws me is just because you can "claim" heritage, you automatically ARE an Indian...go figure that one out...)

Turns out one of his claims is being challenged. In today's Rocky, a tribe is calling his membership fraudulent.

Seems that the Keetoowah band (tribe) is challenging his claim to be a "member"...

"The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990s because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry."

The tribe said that all of Churchill's "past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment,' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein, are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band."

Churchill could not be reached Tuesday, and his attorney, David Lane, did not respond to calls for comment.

News of the tribe's firm disavowal of Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado, comes on the heels of Lane's assertion that Churchill included "conclusive proof" of his American Indian status - including his tribal membership card and a videotape of his induction ceremony - in his 50-page response to a CU investigation.

The university is examining whether Churchill misrepresented himself as an American Indian in order to gain employment-related benefits or to add credibility or gain public acceptance for his scholarship. It is also looking into charges of plagiarism, fabrication or misuse of others' work.

Churchill has variously described himself as 1/16 or 3/16 Cherokee but has pinned his American Indian identity most firmly on the associate membership granted to him in 1994 by the United Keetoowah Band, based in Tahlequah, Okla.

The 1/16 or 3/16 assertion has also been debunked by the Rocky as well as 850 KOA and other media organizations that have investigated his past. The most accurate number so far is 0/16.

Churchill's ivory tower continues to crumble - but don't be surprised if he drags down others with him - I have a sneaking suspicion, since he's a dyed in the wool liberal, that he'll have an aggressive counterattack to go after the character of his accusers. Nothing "noble" about his coming downfall - which, as I have been told, being "noble" and having "character" is part and parcel of Native American Heritage.

Churchill: Response filed

The Rocky Mountain News is reporting that Ward Churchill has sent a 50 page, single-space response to the investigative committee at CU.

Single spaced. Doubt he has that standard for his students.

The funniest portion is how he can claim to still be an Indian on 3 of 4 legitimate grounds. None of these however, have anything to do with blood relation - being an actual Indian (that's the 4th ground).

Check this out:

Churchill took "an interesting position," Lane said, on whether he has fabricated an American Indian heritage to gain greater acceptance and credibility for his writings on Indian issues.

"He thinks it would be equally offensive for them (the faculty committee) to certify him as an Indian, as it would be to say he's not an Indian - but he showed conclusive proof to say he is Native American; but he is telling them it's none of their business. And I don't see it as constitutionally their place, to prove his pedigree."

Lane said that federal law provides four points on which American Indian status can be legally claimed, and that Churchill can satisfy at least three.

One, Lane said, is how a person self-identifies. Churchill has identified himself as an Indian - by at least one recent account - since he was 10.

A second method is through community acceptance and recognition. Churchill points to the passionate rally around him by American Indians, including actor/activist Russell Means, during his speaking engagement on the CU campus Feb. 8, as evidence of meeting that test.

Enrollment in a tribe is a third qualification Churchill cites to CU - the "smoking gun" in Lane's words. Specifically, Churchill points to the associate membership awarded him in 1994 by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Tahlequah, Okla.

Churchill and Lane insist that associate membership is more significant than the "honorary" membership the same tribe once gave President Clinton. Several tribal members, however, say there is no difference between the two.

The committee has until late June to vote on whether to begin a full investigation or not. Until then, Churchill will continue to receive his in-excess of $90,000 a year salary, which IS partially subsidized by Colorado taxpayers.

Newsweak's Fatal Mistake

Wow. What a firestorm, literally, that Newsweak has ignited.

First was "the scoop": that interrogators in Gitmo had desecrated the "Holy" Koran during interrogations. This came from an "unimpeachable" government source.

Strong suggestion to the Newsweak staff: before you claim "unimpeachable" sources, please feel free to consult Dan Rather, FORMERLY of CBS (or, as I still like to call it...."See B S").

Second came the riots. Tailor made. Anti-American riots, just like the anti-Bush MSM wanted. Innocents killed during the riots.

I can only imagine the visions of Pulitzer's dancing in Newsweak's mind.

Until. A road-bump. Turns out the unimpeachable source has been impeached after all.

After the road bump....the end of the road. The riot that Newsweak so desired, ended up in their own lobby. The White House, and all of OBJECTIVE newsmedia (meaning exclude Newsweak, CBS, CNN, and especially it appears to be MSNBC this time)....found out the truth.

The funniest thing of all after Newsweak's story went off the road was their spokesman's feeble attempt at damage control....they couldn't retract the story "until we know the facts?"

"Until we know the facts" - that is the excuse to NOT retract a story, but it sure wasn't anything that got in the way of the story being published IN THE FIRST PLACE. Evidently attending a credible journalism school (even by correspondence) is secondary to being Anti-Bush in the hiring pool these days.

The funniest thing of all? Someone saw this coming LAST WEEK. I heard it first on his radio show, but, Dennis Prager has expounded upon those thoughts here.

To wit:

As I said on my radio show days before Newsweek revealed that its report was baseless, even if the report were true, the magazine was highly irresponsible when it published the report. It could have only one effect: inflaming the wrath of hundreds of millions of Muslims against America.

If an American interrogator of Japanese prisoners desecrated the most sacred Japanese symbols during World War II, it is inconceivable that any American media would have published this information. While American news media were just as interested in scoops in 1944 as they are now, they also had a belief that when America was at war, publishing information injurious to America and especially to its troops was unthinkable.

Such a value is not only not honored by today's news media, the opposite is more likely the case. The mainstream media oppose the war in Iraq and loathe the Bush administration. Whatever weakens the war effort and embarrasses the president raises a news source's prestige among its domestic, and especially foreign, peers.

Newsweek is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents and for damaging America. As a typical member of the American news media, Newsweek's primary loyalties are to profits and to its political/social agenda.

The obvious liberal bias of the MSM continues. First, CBS was a casualty of their own blinders to reach an agenda. Now, it's Newsweak's turn. Next, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who apparently went off the deep end in trying to defend the "government source" behind the original story....ummmmmm, I thought the source was "an anonymous and UNIMPEACHABLE" source...does Keith have insider information with his liberally slanted buddies at Newsweak?

Also, speaking of the media bias and how it's still there...check out this gem from Hugh Hewitt's blog today:

My cross-country trip last night was on JetBlue, which meant I got to watch all of the talking heads chew on the Newsweek fiasco. One common theme is that Isikoff is a talented investigative reporter without a similar screw-up in his past. Chris Matthews was praising him to the sky, which struck me as about as appropriate as praising a NASCAR drivers record of wins in the aftermath of vehicular manslaughter involving a street crash with a teenage driver who may have been partly to blame. There aren't any mulligans in American law when negligence leads to the death of innocents. (spelling error fixed here...c'mon Hugh!)



Finally, on a lighter note...it's been a while since I've commented on the Ward Churchill saga. Apparently he hasn't been in the headlines until recently....

Well, apparently he has resurfaced (HT to Michigan Bowhunter at Free Republic and NewsMax)...and it looks like he was at the protests over the weekend.

You be the judge:

Funny how anytime someone protests the U.S., he shows up, isn't it?

Churchill: Lawsuits start to fly

(HT Charlie Brennan of Free Republic)

Seems that Dan Caplis, legal eagle from 850 KOA, has been forced to file a defamation lawsuit against a Churchill supporter, as reported in today's Rocky Mountain News.

Seems that Caplis has sued Churchill supporter Glenn Spagnuolo over remarks Spagnuolo made recently about a alleged assault against a pregnant "woman of color" (seems the Libs never tire of using the race card at every convenient opportunity).

Of course, you need to remember that Spagnuolo, who made the accusation supposedly eight years after it allegedly occured, is the same Longmont city employee under investigation for using a city cell phone to call into a talk show about the Churchill incident (I believe it was Caplis' show as well, but cannot recall for sure, and callers wait a long time (read: burn minutes) to get on his show), as well as using the cell phone for political activism.

So, there you have the liberals again - caught in a ethical issue, what do they do? Address it head on? Nooooooo. They learned from the master, Bill Clinton: ATTACK the messenger - attack the accuser - attack - attack - attack until the real issue gets lost in the spin.

Business as usual for the libs in Colorado.

Columbia U: Whitewash

(Hat tip to Little Green Footballs and in turn to davesax): Columbia U released it's report into the antisemitism charges students had leveled against faculty members of the Middle Eastern Studies department.

Although they acknowledge shortcomings in grievance procedures, it looks like nothing...nothing will happen to the faculty members in question. It also appears to be the ultimate whitewash, and the committee must have realized it had shortcomings, for they refused to show it to the very students that had leveled the complaints in the first place, telling them it was "for their own good".

Disgusting. After being pressured, they did release it to the students, who found only three of dozens of complaints were actually investigated.

It took four MONTHS to investigate only three incidents, and NOT come up with any punitive actions? That is known as a whitewash.

Churchill: Not quite the martyr he wanted to be

Breaking recent news from CU's review of Ward Churchill.

While they have concluded that his reprehensible remarks about 9/11 are in fact "protected speech" - meaning, IF he is fired, it won't be about the controversy he WANTED it to be about.

Instead, and more troubling for Ward, the university will begin a committee review into charges of academic fraud and fraudulent claims about his American Indian ancestry.

From the article:

He said a faculty committee would review allegations that Churchill plagiarized the work of other researchers and claims that he falsely claimed to be an American Indian.

Churchill has repeatedly denied both allegations and has said he would sue the university if he is fired.

"We have concluded that the allegations of research misconduct, related to plagiarism, misuse of others' work and fabrication, have sufficient merit to warrant further inquiry," said DiStefano.

He said that review could take up to nine months.

So, another nine months drawing from his $90,000 plus salary, that should be proven he doesn't have the right to draw from. No wonder government employment is so lucrative - you can't really be fired...not in the way most of us might be used to. You have months of pay coming while an investigation is done, and then, MAYBE...you can be fired. But there is also an appeals process, where you can STILL be paid while that takes place.

No wonder taxpayers in Colorado are frustrated.

UPDATE: I received the following email this evening from the chancellor at CU:

SUBJECT: CHANCELLOR'S EMAIL TO PREVIOUS WRITERS

FROM: Office of the Chancellor

SENDER: Collect@Colorado.edu

DATE: March 24, 2005


Dear Friend:

You were one of many citizens who wrote or called the University of Colorado at
Boulder concerning the controversial essay about 9/11 written by Professor Ward
Churchill. Because of your interest, I am writing to share with you the
outcome of our review of allegations concerning Professor Churchill's conduct
and scholarship.

In short, our review team found that Professor Churchill's controversial essay
on 9/11 and other public comments are protected by the First Amendment, but
that other allegations of plagiarism, misuse of others' work and fabrication
may constitute research misconduct.

The report also points to possible research misconduct related to allegations
that Churchill misrepresented his ethnicity to gain credibility and attract an
audience for his scholarship. Research misconduct, if proven, is subject to
university sanctions.

We take these allegations very seriously and will address them through
established university procedures that require due process. I have determined
that the allegations of research misconduct should be referred to the campus's
Standing Committee on Research Misconduct for thorough investigation.
Appropriate action will be taken upon completion of the committee's work.

More information and a copy of the full report are available on the campus web
site at www.colorado.edu/news.

Thank you for your continuing interest in the University of Colorado at
Boulder.

Sincerely,


Chancellor Phil DiStefano

Churchill: Deny, Deny, Deny

The Rocky Mountain News spoke to Ward recently. Not surprisingly, although he is NOT backing off his controversial comments that started it all (the little Eichmann's comments, etc), but, he is standing at the bottom of the mountain, as the avalanche approaches, denying there is an avalanche.

The avalanche is composed of his comments, his past, his threats, his plagiarism, everything that still continues to boil up as the investigation continues.

He is standing firm, hoping for a "Pyrrhic" victory once all is said and done. In other words, he has no problem bleeding CU dry - using taxpayer dollars. These are the same taxpayer dollars he wants used to defend him, that he denies he receives as salary in the first place.

So once again, Ward, denial is not just a river in Egypt. However, this time, it's an avalanche of epic proportions. Keep standing still - it's close to overtaking you anyways. The show continues to be entertaining.