1 Legally, the only recourse for CU to get rid of him is to prove in court that he has hurt the university's reputation and they've lost revenue and enrollments as a direct result. Our freedom of speech (at this point - keep your fingers crossed - we've seen SCOTUS in all its disgrace now) is so well protected that he can say just about anything. And he WILL get away with it becuse he'll make a federal case out of it. The guy is morally bankrupt.

2 Oyster: Generally we haven't kept the same standards of speech during wartime, but then most Americans don't even know we're at war, so one can't expect them to be very receptive to the idea of punishing sedition just yet. His statement is actually couched in a way that he could argue he's just making an "if, then" comparison, which probably avoids the "fire in a crowded theater" exception to free speech. But it might be interesting to test it, just to raise awareness a little. I'm not sure that CU has a "financial consequences" argument, either. They could fire him for plagiarism or a host of other reasons, of course, without even violating any AAUP strictures. I'm really amazed the guy is still on the payroll, frankly. Anyway, if they can make money out of toilet-themed restaurants I guess there's a market for anything.

3 Well if he can advocate violence, which is supposed to be a crime, and face no penalty, then I can too. I hope one of his students "frags" him.

4 All good points, Demo. Personally I think the guy should be strung up and horsewhipped. In a time of war or not, this kind of speech is totally unacceptable. He was talking like this before the war. Just no one took notice of him.

5 "ALL" violence is "abhored" by the "peace-loving" Left. There is absolutely NO vilence that is justified, (uh, well, except when they deem it appropriate to "prevent" their enemies from succeeding, and of course to advance their "peaceful" agenda). The Leftist lunatics hysterically allege that the Right is "planning" future violence. But virtually all the violence is currently being actively committed by...you guessed it, the luny Left. But it's "o.k.," you see, because Leftist violence will "prevent" the Right from carrying out it's "evil" plans, and the violence the Right allegedly intends to commit. Gee, do you suppose the Leftists can read our minds and see the future, ...'n stuff? I wouldn't know, 'cuz I can't read minds or see the future. But then, I don't have to. Why? Because I can see the discrepency between their words and their actions. The gap is enormous. And, if only the Leftist press didn't share their ideology, or at the very least didn't let it get in the way of the truth, more people would see it. (Of course since interference is part of their ideology you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for them to change.) They want me to trust them!? No way! They give me nothing but useless information and tell me nothing but lies? They aren't fooling me. But the disturbing thing is that they ARE fooling a lot of people, not becaue those people are stupid, but because of the very large Leftist faction of the MSM press which shares the Leftist's agenda. And THAT is the biggest problem in dealing with them. They control the flow if much of the information we get, and whoever controls information has the edge on determining what people think. Information control can also be used to give credibility to sleezeoids who can't come by it honestly, thus disguising their incompetance and malice. If we knew who they were, we could just laugh at their antics and be done with them politically. Not knowing gives them the edge they need to weasle their way into power and get their busy little hands in reach of the control pannel. Before you know it, the Supreme Kourt goes from protector of the constitution and individual rights to userper of those rights. They just ruled that individual personal property can be taken away to serve the "greater good" of whoever thinks he or she is gooder or has more mooola to bribe the govt., to agree. (In case you don't know it, Komrad, that is Comunism with a Kapital K.) I may not be able to tell the future, but I do know that if they succeed in becoming the majority in power, it will NOT be a good thing. They have to be stopped, but NOT with violence. Most Americans are rational and well-intentioned. They are not the low-lifes the elitist Left accuses them of being. They must be stopped with the truth, which, unlike them, most Americans actually cherish. I just hope it isn't already too late.

6 Ward is such a chicken hawk. He needs to go an frag somebody himself.

7 i watched the vidoe of this scumbag and it makes me sick...he is pretty much trying to incite volence and murder....freedom of speech my ass, this man should be arrested and prosecuted for his HATE speech and that is illegal...its just like me going out to a corner in Newark, NJ and screaming out that all blacks and hispanics should be killed...see what would happen if i did, why should some scumbag hippy proffesor be allowed to do this when i would be arrested and imprisoned???...this is sad that this man can try and hide behind the Constitution's freedom of speech when he is breaking so many civil rights...were the hell is Jesse Jackson??!!??..maybe some of those officers that Churchill wants fragged are black...Jesse could see money there to be made...yea, im sure this hippy idiot is smart enough to speak his hate speach in a certain way to not directly make himself guilty but there must be some way to bring him down...sedition speach, treason, something...unreal..something must be done about people like Churchill who are in one way or another directly inciting hate...this just isnt a guy saying that he is against the war and maybe doing some peacefull protesting, thats fine and dandy and youre right as an American but to incite murder is something totally different...arrest this man, or i would bet that someone will try and shut him up permanetly

8 Let us put this in perspective. Churchill is a small fry like the punk BUSH LIES.

9 Contrast between two administrations: Under Komrade Klinton anyone who was guilty of owning guns and holding religious beliefs was in danger of attack from the FBI/BATF Gestappo, but under Bush, people are free to advocate treason and assassination of political figures and military officers. If I'm not mistaken, neither is supposed to be acceptable in America. The Dhimmicrats like to scream "Nazi" at every turn, but only to hide their own evil. The Republicans are guilty of nothing less than dereliction of duty. Why can't anyone get it right? Is it really impeding someone's First Amendment rights to prosecute them for treason and sedition? No. Is it within the government's rights to send in the tanks, helicopters, and snipers to kill women and children just because some religious fanatic buys a gun? No. We're losing our country, it's slipping away from us. We can't let that happen.

10 I'd like to point out two things: 1. Churchill, for all his Truck Driving/AV Using/Special Forces background (don't laugh, remember Casey Ryback was the ship's cook, after he was a Navy Seal, of course, that was a Steven Seagal movie, but the point stands) should know that US forces are trained to have a great deal of autonomy should an officer be killed in a combat operation. So, Churchill's point makes sense only if he were talking about Napoleonic, Prussian or, say, Nazi troops - but not US soldiers. 2. Ward seems to think that the 'fog of war' would allow some chance that the fragger would get away with it. That may have been the case in Vietnam, but investigative techniques have improved since then, there's also the absence of a jungle and an organized fighting force that can mobilize division level forces against you. So, provided the other troops don't just shoot the fragger, there's not going to be any meaningful support. If I gave a damn, I'd wonder what CU's policy is on having people audit a class, specifically, Ward Churchill's class. Seems that some Veteran's Friendly organization could offer a small stipend to have students or people opposed to fragging sit in on the class. I think Ward's enough of a hero to withstand a harsh gaze.

11 Churchill went to Vietnam I hear. He's a war vet.

12 Demo:Taking Academic Freedom Too Far? One can't take academic freedom too far. The only angle one might use to counter Dr. Churchill is Harrasment, but that would be chicken shit in my opinion.

13 Ward Churchill, a hero? That's pretty funny. According to his resume, when applying at CU, he was a "Public Information Specialist" and his duties consisted of "[writing] and [editing] the battalion newsletter and wrote news releases." His higest rank was Corporal. You know - like "Radar" in MASH? Also, according to the "National Personnel Records Center", his training consisted of "jeep driver and projectionist". I'd say he is projecting all right.

14 Downing, we're getting fed up with these Lefty "exceptions to the rule" like BUSH LIES and Ward churchill, Michael Moore, etc. At least rightwing loonery cuts in favor of our country, not against it.

15 Carlos:'At least rightwing loonery cuts in favor of our country, not against it.' I beg to differ. Loonery is loonery and even the rightwingers who aren't lunatics are fucking up the country just as bad, or worse, than the leftists.

16 TAKING THE PATRIOT ACT TOO FAR? Use of Patriot Act against homeless is under fire N.J. City Criticized for Homeless Lawsuit Associated Press | June 29, 2005 The USA Patriot Act, in the name of fighting terrorism, allows the government to find out which books and Internet sites a person has seen. It lets investigators secretly search homes and monitor phone calls and e-mail. Now, officials in the wealthy New York City suburb of Summit are using the law to justify forcing homeless people to leave a train station _ an action that sparked a $5 million federal lawsuit by a homeless man. Richard Kreimer, who filed the lawsuit in March after being kicked out of the train station, said the Patriot Act defense makes no sense. "Unless they've been smoking those funny cigarettes, I can't see how my civil lawsuit has anything to do with the Patriot Act," said Kreimer, 55, who is acting as his own attorney.

17 Patriot Act controversy aside--Why doesn't Kreimer get a blasted job? Is he incapacitated in some way? Sounds like he's in good enough health to make "funny" comments and get in the paper being "his own attorney." Why are taxpayers and those who support the train through their fares footing the bill for this lazy bastard's domicile?

18 Using the Patriot Act to evict homeless people makes about as much sense as using parking/traffic laws to raise revenue. To put it in another way, it's the enforcement-- not the law itself-- that is abusive.

19 >>>>"I beg to differ." greg, I'll take a patriotic rightwing extremist over a Leftwing extremist traitor ANY ANY ANY day of the week.

20 I think you fail to appreciate the patriotic fervor of the left.

21 >>>"I think you fail to appreciate the patriotic fervor of the left." That's a fact.

22 Carlos RE the Patriot Act:'To put it in another way, it's the enforcement-- not the law itself-- that is abusive.' The law is so vague that it encourages 'abuse' as predicted. Therefore, it is a crappy law. No?

23 >>>"The law is so vague that it encourages 'abuse' as predicted. Therefore, it is a crappy law. No?" Yes, vague laws can be unconstitutional if they are overbroad in their LEGITIMATE interpretation. But a law is not vauge simply because it is being abused.

24 It's not that so many people have so much against homeless people, but I understand why some are fed up with them. Groups ike the ACLU continue to fight for their "rights" in our courts and giving them carte blanc to keep on with their life style, and providing no solutions for them. Near I work the situation with the homeless is out of control. The ACLU has sued our city so many times for trying to get them out of the area, even when the city offers help and support in the process, that their hands are tied and they can't even get them to move on from an area without being dragged through the courts. Let me tell you why we're so fed up. There is a public restroom about 100 yards from our business that the homeless are welcome to use, yet, almost daily they prefer to defecate and urinate on the doorsteps of the local businesses. As customers are trying to have a meal on the outdoor patio of a restaurant, the homeless are panhandling from them, verbally abusing them and on more than one occasion even attacking them. They constantly steal the property of the local businesses and often cause extensive damage to those businesses. And the only time anyone can do anything is to catch them red handed and call the police. The police then arrest them for breaking an actual law and they are consequently pressured by groups like the ACLU to release them after a two day jail term so they can go out and do it again. The vast majority of homeless people are mentally ill. But, because so many laws have been passed prohibiting anyone from forcing them to succumb to psychiatric help, the problem persists. So which is the more humanitarian approach? Suing municipalities and ignoring the source of the problem, or getting them the help they really need and alleviating the stress for law abiding citizens?

25 My point was that I can see why one to go the the lengths of invoking the Patriot Act. It may not be right or even applicable, but it shows desperation in trying to solve a difficult problem.

26 Oyster: "Groups ike the ACLU continue to fight for their "rights" in our courts and giving them carte blanc to keep on with their life style, and providing no solutions for them." What, you don't think free sterile needles help?! "...forcing them to succumb to psychiatric help..." I'm with you, but we better not tell Tom Cruise.

27 Greg, not in a moment of honesty, lucidity, or sanity, said: "I think you fail to appreciate the patriotic fervor of the left." Yeah, and you fail to appreciate that we know you for what you are. Your kind doesn't love America, you hate it, and are constantly trying to destroy it. Don't worry though, it will all catch up to you soon. One more terrorist attack is all it will take to put all you Islamofascist terrorist lovers on the endangered species list.

28 Probulus Faggimus, You bitch meat slut hole. I love Americans, but I don't care for our government. The government no longer reflects the ideals set down by our fore fathers. As for my lucidity, I'm still suffering from jet lag.

29 Oyster, Where are the homeless to sleep? Most of the homeless men are veterans that have been betrayed by the VA and America. And we claim to support our troops. Shameful! Tom Cruise is right. We overly medicate. For example, 67% of foster children in Texas are on a permanent regimen of psychotropic drugs. Here kid, shut up and take your Meds. Meds, the quick fix.

30 Hahaha...uh. What? Oh sorry, forgot to take my Ritalin. http://tomcruiseisnuts.com/ http://freekatie.com/

31 I love Americans, but I don't care for our government. The government no longer reflects the ideals set down by our fore fathers. Frankly, I thought the comment about the "patriotic fervor of the left" was a joke. Not that there aren't a few on the "left" who, like Hitchens, are genuine admirers of the American Ideology: 1. Anti-statism; 2. Religeous sectarianism; and 3. Egalitarianism (as in equality of opportunity, not outcome). But as a general rule most people on the left are closet Stalinists, and they know enough to understand that Lockeanism is their mortal enemy. It opposes the left's agenda in two important ways: 1. It represents a genuine alternative to redistributional needs-based economic solutions (something observed with great eloquence and disdain by Frederick Engels). 2. It excludes any system that would place the "commanding heights of the economy" in the hands of the state, as a simple precaution against tyrannical government. For this reason the left has had a program of disinformation about the Founders for generations, arguing that they were simply a different version of the old enemy: class oppression. Clever leftists like Moore know enough to pay lip service to patriotism, and even to shed crocodile tears if he's accused of not being patriotic. But they genuinely hate Americanism, because it's in diametric opposition to their preferences and prescriptions.