moonbattery.gif


« 15% of Porkulus Jobs Will Go to Illegal Aliens | Main | Open Thread »


March 10, 2009

Ward Churchill Trial Underway

Moonbat professor Ward Churchill, who was finally fired from University of Colorado for fabricating and plagiarizing his inflammatory anti-American scholarly scribblings, is underway in Denver. Mental Ward is suing because he says he was fired for his political views, which are best summarized by his assertion that the victims of the Muslim atrocities of 9/11 were "little Eichmanns."

Looking at the Left analyzes the faux Indian's legal strategy:

To understand a man's actions or crimes, the law considers motives, but the University of Colorado (CU Boulder) did not look at his motives as a criminal court does. Ward is the one bringing up his politics as his defense, but he is only highlighting his motive for committing the academic "crimes" he was found guilty of. This is a good development, as it will clarify to the public what is in this man's heart and what inspires him and other Marxist pseudo-academics.

At least Churchill must be encouraged to know that Obama mentor Bill Ayers isn't his only supporter. There's also this lonely ACLU guy:

churchill-supporter.jpg

Churchill's sideshow is attracting much less attention, now that fifth-columnists have learned how to package his ideology for mainstream consumption so effectively as to install the personification of it in the White House.

Posted by Van Helsing at March 10, 2009 9:35 AM

Comments

Hey guys, I've got news for you, now that a Marxist is the POTUS, WE'RE THE FIFTH COLUMN!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 10, 2009 9:43 AM

I can't kill that messenger??? Bring him around here and that Kalishnikov will be so far up his ass his mother will be speaking Russian.
She deserves a whack too for bringing such an asshole into the world!

Posted by: Shooter1001 at March 10, 2009 9:58 AM

Ward Churchill is no longer necessary to the cause of The Glorious People's Revolution™.
He served his purpose in the Demoralization and Destabilization stages, but things have moved on since then.
Now we are at the Crisis stage ... big time.
No wonder Bill Ayers is sticking by Ward Churchill; perhaps Ayers senses they'll both suffer the same fate when Obama announces Normalization.
According to Yuri Bezmenov, all the useful idiots like Ayers and Churchill will be squashed like cockroaches.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/09/the_fate_of_use.html#comments

Posted by: Mike_W at March 10, 2009 10:28 AM

This hack dresses up like Che Guevara and thinks hes cool?

They should clone Winston Churchill's DNA and have him kick Ward's sorry ass into HELL.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 10, 2009 10:39 AM

Frankly some should take WARD CHURCHILLS CHE picture and hit him over the head with it

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at March 10, 2009 11:35 AM

Funny, should anyone look at the before and after communist revolutions in one of many little peoples republics around the world, One will notice the ones in the beginning are never seen again. The leader is up front and center but all his faithful minions are gone…

Odd is it not???

Moral of the story…..Bye Bye Ward,

Posted by: Unicorn Fart at March 10, 2009 11:55 AM

Hello everyone. Even if you hate the guy, you should try to at least understand what he is saying. Sound bytes and comments taken out of context don't ever give you the whole picture of where someone is coming from. At least try to keep an open mind and read the following:

Question posed to Ward Churchill and his answer:

WC: Do I personally think it was a legitimate target or should have been a legitimate target? Absolutely not. And that’s said on the basis of all but absolute rejection of and opposition to U.S. policy. But what you have to understand, and what the listeners have to understand, is that under U.S. rules, it was an acceptable target. And the reason it was an acceptable target, if none other, was that because the C.I.A., the Defense Department, and other parts of the U.S. military intelligence infrastructure, had situated offices within it, and you’ll recall that that is precisely the justification advanced by the Donald Rumsfelds of the world, the Norman Schwarzkopfs, and the Colin Powells of the world, to explain why civilian targets had been bombed in Baghdad. Because that nefarious Saddam Hussein had situated elements of his command and control infrastructure within otherwise civilian occupied facilities. They said that, in itself, justified their bombing of the civilian facilities in order to eliminate the parts of the command and control infrastructure that were situated there. And of course, that then became Saddam Hussein’s fault. Well, if it was Saddam Hussein’s fault, sacrificing his own people, by encapsulating strategic targets within civilian facilities, the same rule would apply to the United States. So, if you’ve got a complaint out there with regard to the people who hit the World Trade Center, you should actually take it to the government of the United States, which, by the rubric they apply elsewhere in the world, everywhere else in the world ultimately, they converted them from civilian targets into legitimate military targets. Now, that logic is there, and it’s unassailable. It’s not something that I embrace. It’s something that I just spell out.There was a Central Intelligence Agency office. There were Defense Department offices. There was, I believe, an F.B.I. facility. All of which fit the criteria of the bombing target selection utilized by the Pentagon. If it was fair to bomb such targets in Baghdad, it would be fair for others to bomb such targets in New York. That’s what I’m saying. I don’t think it’s fair to bomb such targets in Baghdad, therefore I reject New York, but so long as United States is applying those rules out in the world, it really has no complaint when those rules are applied to it.

Also, this is interesting too:

Here, Churchill describes the meaning behind his essay that created so much controversy. I think people should read his essay before they try to denounce it or him. See the following:

Well it goes to Hannah Arendt’s notion of Eichmann, the thesis that he embodied the banality of evil. That she had gone to the Eichmann trial to confront the epitome of evil in her mind and expected to encounter something monstrous, and what she encountered instead was this nondescript little man, a bureaucrat, a technocrat, a guy who arranged train schedules, who, as it turned out, ultimately didn’t even agree with the policy that he was implementing, but performed the technical functions that made the holocaust possible, at least in the efficient manner that it occurred, in a totally amoral and soulless way, purely on the basis of excelling at the function and getting ahead within the system that he found himself. He was a good family man, in his way. He was loved by his children, participated in civic activities, was in essence the good German. And she [Arendt] said, therein lies the evil. It wasn’t that Eichmann was a Nazi or a high official within Nazidom, although he was in fact a Nazi and a relatively highly placed official, but it was exactly the reverse: that given his actual nomenclature, the actuality of Eichmann was that anyone in this sort of mindless, faceless, bureaucratic capacity could be the Nazi. That he was every man, and that was what was truly horrifying to her in the end. That was a controversial thesis because there’s always this effort to distinguish anyone and everyone irrespective of what they’re doing from this polarity of evil that is signified in Nazidom, and she had breached the wall and brought the lessons of how Nazism actually functioned, the modernity of it, home and visited it upon everyone, calling for, then, personal accountability, responsibility, to the taking of responsibility for the outcome of the performance of one’s functions. That’s exactly what it is that is shirked here, and makes it possible for people to, from a safe remove, perform technical functions that result in (and at some level, they know this, they understand it) in carnage, emiseration, the death of millions ultimately. That’s the Eichmann aspect. But notice I said little Eichmanns, not the big Eichmann. Not the real Eichmann. The real Eichmann ultimately is symbolic, even in his own context. He symbolized the people that worked under him. He symbolized the people who actually were on the trains. They were hauling the Jews. He symbolized the technicians who were making the gas for I.G. Farben. He symbolized all of these people who didn’t directly kill anybody, but performed functions and performed those functions with a certain degree of enthusiasm and certainly with a great degree of efficiency, that had the outcome of the mass murder of the people targeted for elimination or accepted as collateral damage. That’s the term of the art put forth by the Pentagon.


Posted by: i care at March 10, 2009 12:00 PM

I'm afraid that doesn't change the fact that the jerkwod stated quite publicly along with his buddy BillyBob Ayres, that the people who died in the Islamofascist Attack on the World Trade Center deserved it!!! I would like to send his butt to some "enlightened third world country" to live and see how long Mr. Big Mouth survives. His role model, Che Guavera was the murderer of literally thousands of innocent Cuban citizens.

Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at March 10, 2009 12:40 PM

The ACLU guy looks like Will Ferrel who we now know is a leftist loser.

Posted by: assman at March 10, 2009 1:07 PM

Ward Churchill is an idiot socialist loser.

so many of his supporters are wussy liberals that live inside their own little world. My advice? Get your sorry butts out of the US and go see what your stupid ideology has wrought OUTSIDE the United States and then feel free to STAY THERE.
As for Churchill, in my opinion, he's the poster child for left wing liberals and embodies their number 1 rule: if you can't win, cheat and if you get caught, yell loudly that it's unfair, until someone believes you.
he deserves neither the liberty he enjoys nor the freedoms he tramples on.

Posted by: towerclimber at March 10, 2009 2:57 PM

"i care at March 10, 2009 12:00 PM"

Awww, group hug!

I understand, he and his kind have made themselves quite clear: THEY HATE AMERICA AND FREEDOM!

Posted by: KHarn at March 10, 2009 5:18 PM

To i care: cool story, bro.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 10, 2009 10:24 PM

What's with the idiot's poster, anyway? "You can kill the messenger, but you can't kill this messenger?" WTF? Did he mean "can't kill the message?" Or did he really mean we can't kill Ward Churchill, in which case I beg to differ, and I'm sure many would love the chance to disprove this notion.

Btw, love the faux revolutionary pose with the shades, beret and AK-47. Very romantic.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 11, 2009 9:45 AM

You guys are obviously too far gone to listen to reason, but just wanted to quickly say that I will be laughing very hard at all of you when professor Churchill wins his case and gets his job back.

Posted by: brian cairns at March 11, 2009 1:30 PM

Why laugh at us brian? We're smart enough not to go to that crappy school in the first place.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at March 11, 2009 1:47 PM

I must have sent this un-american bag of shit 30 emails and he answered every one! I hope I can find a new email for him when his trial is over as he told me he would have the last laugh. Good luck buddy

Posted by: jimbo at March 18, 2009 5:18 PM