March 03, 2005
An Anchor Around the Democratic Party's Neck
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.
Posted by Van Helsing at March 3, 2005 12:27 PM
Damn, had to look up "hebephrenic". From hebephrenia, a form of schizophrenia "characterized by incoherence, delusions lacking an underlying theme, and affect that is flat, inappropriate, or silly" (M-W online). A delicious word every moonbat slayer should know.
Posted by: The MaryHunter at March 3, 2005 01:21 PM
the liberal bard
NATAM's YOUR CARD
free ride, rode
point? In your mind, a legend. LOL!
Posted by: Doug at March 5, 2005 11:39 PM