Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dog Soldiers of the American Indian Movement (AIM)
Vanity | 2-`0-05 | Vanity

Posted on 02/10/2005 8:44:07 PM PST by Snapple

An Indian publication points out that when he speaks Colorado's radical professor Ward Churchill is "shielded apparently by his own American Indian Movement (AIM) security team." http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410293


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Colorado; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: academia; aim; american; americanindians; churchill; dog; enemaofthepeople; indian; movement; soldiers; ward; wardchurchill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-148 next last
The AIM security team Indian Country alludes to would probably be the Dog Soldiers. These are the security and enforcement squads that the American Indian Movement has. They cause a lot of violence on the reservations.

It was these Dog Soldiers who kidnapped and murdered an AIM activist Anna Mae Aquash.

1 posted on 02/10/2005 8:44:08 PM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Snapple

The nature of Churchill's decidedly offensive remarks, however, forces us to critique in general the injurious approach to scholarship and basic human decency. We defend the right to broadcast and publish, but propose it is reprehensible to excoriate innocent human beings who have suffered great loss by rubbing salt in deep wounds simply to prove a political point and simply to strike (one more time) a political posture on behalf of the far left and under the guise of American Indian sentiment. Wrapped intimately with American Indian themes in his writings and lectures, and shielded apparently by his own American Indian Movement (AIM) security team, Churchill projects the image of the quintessential American Indian activist and/or warrior - angry, defiant, insulting, forceful and accusatory. Churchill sometimes captures the historical truth of a thing, but only to load it like deadly ammunition into his ideological machine gun.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410293


2 posted on 02/10/2005 8:45:37 PM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

This guy is a very tall pile of S$*t.


3 posted on 02/10/2005 8:54:13 PM PST by phoenix0468 (One man with courage is a majority. (Andrew Jackson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

It's a fine article, much better written than the one that provoked it. Here is the article in full:
Posted: February 03, 2005
by: Editors Report / Indian Country Today


A public speaking engagement at an Eastern college has turned hotly controversial for Ward Churchill, a professor and until last week the chairman of Ethnic Studies Department at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Churchill, a self-professed American Indian, is a prolific and highly polemical writer on Indian issues. Shortly after the murderous attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 in New York, Washington, D.C. and over Pennsylvania, Professor Churchill widely circulated an article in which he compared the victims of those attacks to Nazi functionary Adolf Eichmann, and to all appearances called their horrific deaths a ''befitting ... penalty'' for the ''little Eichmanns' ... participation.''

This week the Boulder professor's public representation of the 9/11 victims became the focal point of a serious broadside. New York's Governor George Pataki chastised Hamilton College for inviting a ''bigoted terrorist supporter'' to ''a forum.'' Hundreds of 9/11 survivors have similarly protested to Hamilton College for hosting such a person, and the furor has already forced Churchill to give up his department chair, as he wrote to his superiors: ''The present political climate has rendered me a liability in terms of representing either my department, the college, or the university.'' The university will allow Churchill to keep his teaching position, which is tenured but not safe from a frontal campaign such as Churchill is likely to continue to face. The focus of calls now is for Churchill to resign or be fired from his tenured position.

The case of a professor or any other American exercising the right of free speech is always important to us. We support that fundamental right more than any other and believe that even the extreme views of others (which sometimes become mainstream) must be defended against any force that would silence our First Amendment rights as citizens and as free human beings.

The nature of Churchill's decidedly offensive remarks, however, forces us to critique in general the injurious approach to scholarship and basic human decency. We defend the right to broadcast and publish, but propose it is reprehensible to excoriate innocent human beings who have suffered great loss by rubbing salt in deep wounds simply to prove a political point and simply to strike (one more time) a political posture on behalf of the far left and under the guise of American Indian sentiment. Wrapped intimately with American Indian themes in his writings and lectures, and shielded apparently by his own American Indian Movement (AIM) security team, Churchill projects the image of the quintessential American Indian activist and/or warrior - angry, defiant, insulting, forceful and accusatory. Churchill sometimes captures the historical truth of a thing, but only to load it like deadly ammunition into his ideological machine gun.

In our own pages this week, Churchill asserts that his remarks have received ''widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage.'' No doubt, this is happening and a good range of commentators will have a heyday with Churchill's attitude on the issues of terrorism, and the causes and justifications he has professed for the attacks of 9/11. No doubt, he will be vilified for his anti-Americanism and his scholarship and there will be much misinformation about his positions. A careful reading of his article on the subject, however, gives a clear sense of the gist of Churchill's words; and we submit that any reasonable and decent human being would find them to be disgusting and cheap words, a callous insult to the dead and wounded in the horrific events of that fateful day.

Being in the crucible of hostility is not new to the chip-on-the-shoulder professor, who has become a celebrity for jumping into the polemic melee over issues big and small, internal and external to the Native world. Even in the question of personal identity, the professor's position is controversial. Churchill's Indian status is not verifiable in the usual ways of checking into tribal membership. We are expansive here from a national position on recognized and non-recognized tribes, southern nations and global indigenous people, but the question of relations and proper belonging in the tribal circles in the United States and Canada is generally verifiable for Indian observers and such appears to be completely lacking in Churchill's case. He has claimed membership in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee, but reliable representatives from the tribe deny Churchill is or ever was, or has blood relatives on their rolls. He was granted an ''associate certificate'' by a former leader of the tribe (later impeached) for services supposedly rendered, not due to blood relations - but even the tribe declines to exactly identify what that means.

Discerning indigenous identity is not an exact science, but it has its rules. It would not be a primary issue relative to research and writing of producers from any quarter, except Churchill represents himself as a major spokesman for Indian people through his participation in a branch of AIM and his claim to Cherokee origins. So far, nothing whatsoever has surfaced that gives evidence to Churchill's claims to having Cherokee Indian origins. Given the intense antagonism and attention focused on Churchill, his biography in this context is likely to be further scrutinized by the University of Colorado, the media, and others who were led to understand he was an American Indian professional at the time of his hiring.

In the Native Studies field, Churchill has been one of those scholar-spokesmen who lead with the idea that Indian peoples are best served by constantly pushing the button of contradiction and the memory of every ill that has ever been inflicted against the tribes. To endlessly cite the misdeeds of the American Empire - while layering the legend of Nazi Germany over it - has the constant method of the Churchill scholarship. Producing a stream of abundant texts all wrapped around his brand of anti-colonialist rhetoric, Churchill has been - by far - the loudest and most obvious remonstrator against the Euro-American Empire's historical (and contemporary) evils inflicted on Native peoples. One can argue Churchill has projected the image of an angry Indian who became notorious for being in the face of non-Indians as much as possible - even though the evidence builds that he is, himself, non-Indian.

Churchill has made a reputation and a career out of these themes and in some circles has come to represent the Indian view to various national and international publics. This is unfortunate for the vast majority of Native people who do not at all share in his opinions about the brutal murder of some 3,000 innocent people during the events of 9/11. Churchill has claimed the media is now misquoting him and he is even parsing ''technicians'' (his bad guys) from the ''janitors, service people, etc.'' (his good guys). It doesn't play any better that way.

Here is what we read in his original article, perhaps the more troubling for his own admission that it was written in a ''stream of consciousness'' expression. Churchill, about the victims of 9/11:

''True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to 'ignorance' - a derivative, after all, of the word 'ignore' - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see.''

The victims' crime, according to Churchill, was to be ignorant of the crimes of the American Empire. This ignorance of real international reality, he further recriminates, was ''likely ... because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants.'' For this, the logic apparently follows, they deserved to be murdered.

This is the clincher of Churchill's troublesome message, which has him now running up a tree from the barking dogs: ''If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.''

In our opinion, Churchill hurts himself with this kind of callous thinking. This is not the way to represent American Indian peoples. What Churchill and his thinking-cap buddies seem to miss is the necessary and much more compelling need of the families and communities of Indian people to find a way forward for the survival and prosperity of their future generations. Men and women leaders who understand the world and actually represent bodies of social and political life never take this type of insulting tack.

Churchill's remarks on the subject reflect easy ideological posturing in the face of horrible personal tragedies that befell so many families. His lost real point, that Americans need to pay more attention to the suffering they cause in the world at large, has been made by others in much more perceptive and eloquent ways, so that those who should hear it most will be able to receive it more readily. The Churchill approach -- to beat the audience over the head with his arguments, as if people had no right to make their way in the world as best they can, for their families and tribes -- has always been counterproductive. These days, it has him in serious hot water.

We will defend a good Indian argument in these pages any time. But, again, there is no evidence that Churchill is Indian. Further, Churchill's statements are obviously devoid of even the most basic humanity that American Indian peoples hold dear. In no way does his insult reflect the views of Indian country. To know the response of Indian country to the 9/11 tragedies is to reflect on the humanitarianism shown by Eastern Native communities: from the Mohawk to the Oneida, the Pequot, Mohegan and many others who immediately put their people - ironworkers, ferry-boat crews and medical personnel - into the rescue and recovery operations, to the California Indian nations that expressed their solidarity with America and donated generously to the rescue efforts, to the Lakota families who brought their Sacred Pipe to pray at the site, leaving their quiet offerings early one dawn. This is always the preferred way of human beings - to understand the kind of empathy required to belong to the human race is essential in all political and economic discourse. To call the people who were murdered on Sept. 11 ''little Eichmanns'' is a hideous expression that when combined to Churchill's mistaken Native identity can only poison the public discourse concerning American Indians.

Churchill writes that his life has been threatened since the controversy began over his published characterizations of the 9/11 victims. Churchill deserves police protection. We applauded the initial steadfastness of Hamilton College in sponsoring the forum and initially sustaining a First Amendment position on the controversy, yet understand that security concerns did cause the cancellation of the event. Now Colorado Governor Bill Owens has requested Churchill's resignation from his teaching position. The hounding of the professor intensifies.

Ward Churchill would do himself some good to express a profound apology to people he has offended and misled. He should also come clean about his appropriated American Indian identity. This is not advice he will likely take. Churchill has jumped on the cougar of controversy ever since he came onto the Indian scene as Russell Means' main speechwriter in the early 1980s. Churchill thrives on riding that controversial cougar, but this time he poked it in the eye.


4 posted on 02/10/2005 8:58:54 PM PST by Imnotalib (Go Howard Dean: "We aren't changing!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

Here is a chronology about the murder of an AIM member named Anna Mae Aquash.
The Lakota Dog Soldiers are mentioned.
http://www.jfamr.org/trialtime.html

I can't say how accurate this chronology is, but it does mention the Dog Soldiers and post it for that reason.

Aquash seems to have been involved in moving weapons/bombings around Mount Rushmore.

On FOX tonite, O'Reilly mentioned that Ward Churchill may have taught one of the 60s radical groups how to make bombs. I think he said the Weathermen.


5 posted on 02/10/2005 8:59:14 PM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: KingNo155

I disagree totally. No Indians are claiming Ward Churchill as a member of their nation.

the Indians have known what Ward Churchill is for a long time: A creep with his own good squad who bosses them around.

The Indians have been the ones who have exposed Ward Churchill.


8 posted on 02/10/2005 9:06:09 PM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

"...Ward Churchill may have taught one of the 60s radical groups how to make bombs. I think he said the Weathermen."

Ward goes back that far, eh?

Well, if Ward had a hand in that, seems to me he might qualify as a terrorist under some kind of definition of Homeland Security.


9 posted on 02/10/2005 9:14:43 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth (Clinton is the only servant of Allah that has gotten his 72 virgins out of the attack on America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth

I say lock him up and throw away the key.


10 posted on 02/10/2005 9:18:52 PM PST by phoenix0468 (One man with courage is a majority. (Andrew Jackson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth

Yes. Ward Churchill hung with all those guys.

Here is another quote alleging that Dog Soldiers are killers:

In 1997 DeMain published his first set of findings in News From Indian Country (www.indiancountrynews.com), sketching out a timeline for the final year of Aquash's life. According to DeMain, Aquash was kidnapped from a Denver home where she had been staying in December of 1975 and "questioned intensely" by some AIM members in Rapid City before being hauled out and executed. Though his investigation drew on a variety of sources including trial transcripts, DeMain acknowledges that the allegations about who killed Aquash and why are based on interviews with sources who insist on anonymity.

In subsequent revisions to the timeline, DeMain has included more detailed versions of the alleged events, naming three individuals he believes were involved in Aquash's kidnapping. In DeMain's view the kidnappers (one of whom he claims was also the trigger man in the execution) were acting on orders from above. "These boys wanted to be dog soldiers," he says. "They wanted to be in the gang, they wanted to be important people. They were already doing security and toting around guns. So when someone in the movement ordered Anna Mae's pick-up, they went and did it."

http://www.citypages.com/databank/21/1002/article8432.asp?page=3

There are two factions of AIM. They both talk trash about each other, so you have to take eveything you read about this with some skepticism.

A do think that these Dog Soldiers are trouble.


11 posted on 02/10/2005 9:22:26 PM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

Thanks.


12 posted on 02/10/2005 9:28:29 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth (Clinton is the only servant of Allah that has gotten his 72 virgins out of the attack on America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

I pray your right... and sorry mod.


13 posted on 02/10/2005 9:31:05 PM PST by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

dennis means came out in defense of churchill. Also heard him on Hannity's show today where he supported churchill.


14 posted on 02/10/2005 9:35:09 PM PST by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib
The guys white. Get it? White. He's a white guy pretending to be an Indian. Pretending. And the college fell for it. And others. Shows how far a nutcase white guy can get with a ton of hate and an idiot following. What a hoot!

One can argue Churchill has projected the image of an angry Indian who became notorious for being in the face of non-Indians as much as possible - even though the evidence builds that he is, himself, non-Indian.

15 posted on 02/10/2005 9:36:00 PM PST by GOPJ (Jacksonville and the NFL did us proud. Thanks for a great show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Hannity did NOT support him.


16 posted on 02/10/2005 9:36:47 PM PST by GOPJ (Jacksonville and the NFL did us proud. Thanks for a great show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

dennis means was on Hannity's show and means supported churchill. Hannity did not support either.


17 posted on 02/10/2005 9:39:19 PM PST by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

For simple historical accuracy, and because there are a great number of Dog Soldier societies that are not even remotely affiliated with the American Indian Movement, I would like to point out that those people who call themselves Lakota Dog Soldiers actually have no reason to do so other than to use the name.

The reason that they borrowed the name, for the record, was because the Cheyenne Dog Soldier Society would traditionally, while in battle, stake themselves (or their sashes, to be more specific) to the ground and not leave until either all their opponents were dead, or until they were dead. The AIM subgroup which calls themselves "Dog Soldiers" has no affiliation with the actuality - and, in fact, most of the actual Dog Soldier societies are rather ticked off about AIM's pilfering of their name for political use.

So, just for the record: not all Dog Soldiers are bad. The subgroup of AIM which ripped off the name, yeah, they're not great... but the actual Dog Soldier societies aren't involved in this. Thought that might need to be said before there's any concern about anyone who calls themselves a Dog Soldier. :)


18 posted on 02/10/2005 9:48:30 PM PST by Ladypixel (Not all Indian activists act like left-wing Churchills... thank goodness!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Sorry. I meant russell means.


19 posted on 02/10/2005 9:56:56 PM PST by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Snapple
I half expect that Dr Churchill might meet his demise at the hands of a Indian. There are a lot of really tough, patriotic and former military guys living on some reservations. I suspect that they really dislike loud mouth lefty white guys pretending to be Indians. There are lots of places where Dr Churchill might vanish out there and I don't think too many people would care. You have to admit the irony would not be lost upon the universe.
20 posted on 02/10/2005 9:57:16 PM PST by dog breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

read later


21 posted on 02/10/2005 9:58:18 PM PST by sauropod (Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib

Bottom line: Colorado taxpayers should not be paying a salary to a traitor. Ifchurchill wishes to be rewarded for treason, he should move to massachussetts.


22 posted on 02/10/2005 10:04:51 PM PST by kimosabe31
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Snapple
A do think that these Dog Soldiers are trouble

Maybe the national attention they'll get from Churchill's exposure will be the end of them. I'm sure that would make Anna Mae Pictou Aquash happy.


23 posted on 02/10/2005 10:40:26 PM PST by mugs99 (Restore the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

I saw them on C-Span at a rally for this wierdo
they looked like a bunch of thugs


24 posted on 02/10/2005 10:43:53 PM PST by proudCArepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ladypixel

Thanks for the input. I don't know too much about these Dog Soldiers. I did read that these were already existing for many years before AIM. That is, they aren't something AIM created, they existed in the Indian culture.

I think a lot of Indians are sick of Churchill and more may come out.



25 posted on 02/10/2005 11:39:25 PM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

BTTT


26 posted on 02/10/2005 11:43:39 PM PST by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: proudCArepublican

You saw Ward Churchill's security? Could you describe it a bit more?

These Dog Soldiers aren't just security--they are also enforcement of things AIM wants.

One student who criticized Churchill because he gave her a bad grade said that "everybody is afraid of him."

This man's scholarship is really poor. There is no balance.

He just uses the Indian thing. He piggy-backs on the Indian issues to promote left-wing causes.

The Indians see that clearly enough.

People who don't know much about Indians will get a bad impression from Churchill. Probably that is what he wants--to stir up hatred between Indians and other Americans.

No tribe is claiming him. Elected Indian leaders don't believe in terrorism or in flying planes into buildings.
The elected Indian leaders are smeared by Ward Churchill as stooges and puppets of a "colonialist" regime. Actually, they are elected by Indians just like in other towns in America. The elected leaders of Indians are a more reliable source of Indian opinion than Ward Churchill.

I like reading this publication by and about Indians
http://www.indiancountry.com/


27 posted on 02/10/2005 11:59:47 PM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

Well, the Dog Soldier societies definitely pre-existed in tribal culture (although there were no Lakota Dog Soldiers - the Cheyenne, Hidatsa and Arikara had somewhat of a monopoly on the society initially), but AIM has rather, well, stolen the name. Bah.

Oh - went digging around earlier, and it turns out that AIM doesn't want Churchill, either. If you take a look at the following two website links, it'll take you to both pages of a flyer sent out regarding Churchill and his expulsion from AIM and other Indian organizations in the late 80's/early 90's.

http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/DisrupternotifyChurchill_01.jpg
http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/DisrupternotifyChurchill_02.jpg


28 posted on 02/11/2005 12:02:47 AM PST by Ladypixel (Not all Indian activists act like lefty Churchills... thank goodness!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ladypixel

AIM is divided into autonomous chapters. The Denver/Boulder AIM is the Ward Churchill group.

In Minneapolis is the other group.

Personally, both kind of scare me. They fight with each other for power and call their opponents FBI spies.

AIM was originally very left-wing 60s and 70s style.
Some of them were terrorists. Some were ex-cons and drug dealers. The same people still run things as always did.

Both AIMs claim to be "the one true AIM."

Both defend Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of shooting two FBI agents. I think Peltier was a criminal and that he shot those guys. It was his gun.

There is a lot of court testimony at http://www/noparolepeltier.com

There are a lot of nice Indians. There are educated articulate writers, educators, professionals, artists, and ordinary people. In my opinion, Indians have lots of better leaders than Leonard Peltier.


29 posted on 02/11/2005 12:35:57 AM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

day bump


30 posted on 02/11/2005 8:54:22 AM PST by GOPJ (Jacksonville and the NFL did us proud. Thanks for a great show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ladypixel

I remember hearing that he was an employee of S.O.F. magazine, and the SDHP... When I saw that years ago, I just figured he was some government schmuck who had infiltrated A.I.M. for some reason...

Either way, the Ward Churchill guy is a scumbag of the highest order...


31 posted on 02/11/2005 5:05:41 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Celibacy is a hands-on job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

Yeah, I tend to think that Peltier is guilty as sin, but when the prosecutor says "we have no idea who shot those agents", well, makes on wonder all the same ;)


32 posted on 02/11/2005 5:07:07 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Celibacy is a hands-on job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks

Peltier admitted on TV that he shot at them. It was his gun.

A good site for the court evidence is http://www.noparolepeltier.com


33 posted on 02/11/2005 5:14:49 PM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

Doesn't mean he actually hit them ;0)

Anyway, that's neither here nor there... my opinion has always been that he's guilty, but that's just my opinion.

Thanks for posting the stuff about Anna Mae, by the way. Her death never got the attention it truely needed...

By the way, if you go to the AIM site, you can find all kinds of interesting tidbits about Churchill from the old COINTELPRO stuff, like where he claimed "a years spent in Southeast Asia in combat" and his affiliation with the Weathermen/SDS etc...

Interesting stuff. ;)


34 posted on 02/11/2005 5:21:17 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Celibacy is a hands-on job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: Snapple

I gotta say this as a man married to a 1/2 Blackfoot, 1/2 Quinault (out of Wa state)....My wife is a conservative and depises Churchill both for what he said and for claiming Indian heritage while doing so. My in-laws (all very liberal) surprisingly also despise this anti-american bastard. For the same reasons.


36 posted on 02/13/2005 7:05:01 AM PST by trubluolyguy ("I like you, therefore when I rule the world, your death shall be quick and painless")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
"...Ward Churchill may have taught one of the 60s radical groups how to make bombs. I think he said the Weathermen."

He's lied about his heritage.

He's lied about being a Ranger and Lurp (LRRP).

He's lied about working for Soldier of Fortune.

He's lied about the US Army causing a smallpox epidemic.

This is probably just another lie.

The more that's revealed about Ward Churchill, the more it becomes apparent that this guy is a liar. So what can one believe?
37 posted on 02/13/2005 7:16:18 AM PST by Beckwith (I know Churchill, and Ward Churchill is no Churchill . . . he ain't an Indian either . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: educatedpatriott

Yes you are so right....

We should continue forever to feel guilty for that which NO LIVING AMERICAN TOOK PART IN! Excuse me, but I feel NOT ONE OUNCE OF GUILT FOR SOMETHING I HAD NO PART IN.


38 posted on 02/13/2005 7:17:36 AM PST by trubluolyguy ("I like you, therefore when I rule the world, your death shall be quick and painless")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

Ignore educated patriot... Just another troll. Should we feel collective guilt for things done a hundred years ago or more? No, I don't think so...

Churchill will be defended by guys like "educatedpatriot" no matter how many lies he tells. Some people wouldn't know reality if it smacked them in the face with a 2x4...

Sad.


39 posted on 02/13/2005 7:59:55 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Celibacy is a hands-on job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Snapple
Peltier admitted on TV that he shot at them. It was his gun.

Shot AT them - from a building - which is a lot different than walking up and shooting them at point-blank range, which is what occurred...

Hell, I'd shoot back at feds who came to my home and started shooting into it, too...

But that being said, I'd also accept the consequences of it, too.

40 posted on 02/13/2005 8:01:38 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Celibacy is a hands-on job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks

I think you have to look at the court testimony to see what stands up to the evidence. Peltier has said so many contradictory things.

It was his gun.

For the court records see

http://www.noparolepeltier.com

I read that Ward Churchill is the one who orchestrated the Mr X interview, but I don't know.

Lee Hill is the one who promoted the Mr X stuff.

Do a search with lee hill peltier mr x

The Mr X stuff is so retarded. A guy puts on a mask and claims he shot the FBI guys. Doesn't give his name. Doesn't talk to the cops. Doesn't have to come into court.

And Mathiessen puts it in his book like it is actually evidence.

This MR X stuff was just like the fake witness Lee Hill brought forward. Her name was Nancy Krebs.

When the police and FBI didn't find her credible, this was
considered "proof" of a cover-up by the authorities of a ring of pedophiles.

And of course Lee Hill is now hiding from the police.


41 posted on 02/13/2005 8:48:32 AM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

I have been saying over and over that the Indians can't stand Churchill.

They have been on to him for a long time. He caused the Indians a lot of trouble.

Liberal or conservative, no normal human being could have anything but contempt for Churchill.

I feel it is the {mostly liberal) professors that are going to expose Churchill.

They are looking at plagiarism, I read/heard on TV.

I think AIM basically plagiarized the Osage Indian murders FBI file.

There is also a report that there is this anthology of writers that Churchill had an article in. There are claims that he also basically told the other contributors what to write. I don't know if this is true or not.

Churchill is the purveyor of the BIG LIE. He needs to be exposed and they need to catch Lee Hill.


42 posted on 02/13/2005 8:56:06 AM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Snapple
There are a lot of nice Indians.

Thank-you for the kind words.............

43 posted on 02/13/2005 9:07:31 AM PST by Osage Orange ("Political interest can never be separated in the long run from moral right" - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

Hmm... what is interesting is that looking through those court files, I see a lot of "the test was inconclusive" type stuff from the ballistics expert, who only matched the extractor, and not the firing pin...


44 posted on 02/13/2005 9:13:42 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Celibacy is a hands-on job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Snapple
They are looking at plagiarism, I read/heard on TV. I think AIM basically plagiarized the Osage Indian murders FBI file.

The plagiarism they are looking at has NOTHING to do with Pine Ridge... geez. How many times do you have to be told that before it sinks in? They are looking at plagiarism accusations from a New Mexico Native Professor, who's work was "lifted" by Churchill...

45 posted on 02/13/2005 9:15:11 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Celibacy is a hands-on job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

This is the only article I could find on his legal trouble, and it is easily over two years old... So, got any links to information that he's "currently wanted by the police" and is a fugitive, or did you pull that out of empty air?

http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/080802/newsspin.html

Lee Hill charged with felony
Wife says police exploited her to "get" Hill

by Wayne Laugesen

Famed defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor W. Lee Hill faces felony charges after an arrest Friday, Aug. 2, following a scuffle with his wife at their northeast Boulder home. Hill, 43, stands charged with felony menacing and misdemeanor assault. He's free on $1,500 bond.

Police insist Hill-friend and lawyer to beatnik poets and movie star Steven Seagal-pulled his wife's hair and held her down during an argument Friday night. During the scuffle, police say, Hill grabbed a 9-mm Glock handgun and ordered his wife to leave the house. His wife, Bonnie Hill, says the police have it wrong and that she was the aggressor.

"I was angry and out of control, and he attempted to calm me down," Bonnie Hill, 31, told Boulder Weekly. "When he grabbed my wrist, it threw me into a rage. I get that way when I'm angry. Looking back, I realize that Lee was trying to help."

Lee Hill says Bonnie was packing up the couple's possessions for a move. She had been placed on new anti-depression medication, and it was proving to agitate her. At one point, Lee Hill says, Bonnie became frustrated and started dumping the contents of packed boxes on the floor.

"I asked her to stop doing that," Lee Hill says. "She flew out of control in a violent rage. I tried to calm her down and was trying to hold her so she would not injure either of us."

Bonnie suffered scrapes and scratches on her arms and Lee suffered scratches on his face and chest, and a bleeding contusion to his lip.

"He's a lot more injured than I am, and now he's not so handsome," Bonnie says, laughing. "I think I gave him a concussion, too."

Lee Hill says he trained Bonnie in self defense, which is why she was able to injure him during her fit of rage.

"The training I had given her made it difficult for me to calm her down without both of us incurring some injuries," Hill says. "She did give me a concussion, precisely because I tought her how to do that to someone with the proper blow to the head."

Lee's guns and knives were out of their normal storage areas so they could be packed for the move, the couple says. Lee says the Glock in question was on a table nearby, and he was concerned about it because of the turmoil.

"I handed the gun to my mother and asked her to get it out of the room, in the interest of her safety, Bonnie's safety and my safety," says Hill, who began carrying weapons while working as a federal narcotics prosecutor. Bonnie says Lee pointed the gun at her, but only in self-defense.

"I understand why he did that, because I was raging and I was standing right next to most of his guns and knives, which we had been preparing to pack," Bonnie says. "I was not frightened when he pointed the gun, because he had every reason to point it at me. He felt threatened because I was in a rage, right next to all those weapons. I knew he was just protecting himself, and that he would never shoot me."

Lee says Bonnie may have perceived that the gun was pointed at her, as he picked it up and passed it to his mother, because it's difficult at a distance to see the true trajectory of a handgun.

Lee and Bonnie say they agreed to call the police, after things calmed down, because the scuffle had created a lot of noise. When police arrived, Hill was waiting for them outside the home.

"Police were directing me to say things about being scared," says Bonnie, who argues that her statements about fear are crammed into the police report, as afterthoughts, because they came after police read her initial statement and then put words into her mouth. "I was never afraid, I was angry. I was in a bad mental state, and they manipulated me against Lee, telling me what to say in the report. I'm very angry with the police."

Bonnie says at least one police officer told her mother-in-law, who was at the home, that "Asian women are crazy and wild." Bonnie Hill is Chinese.

Hill says the detective at the scene, Tom Trujillo, may have a grudge against him because of a past disagreement. Two years ago, Lee Hill was protecting and representing a possible witness in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case who feared for her life. Trujillo blew her cover, Hill says, by contacting authorities in California, who passed the information to people the witness feared most-family members who had filed a missing person's report.

"I yelled at Tom Trujillo for 10 minutes about the way he handled that, and (former) District Attorney Alex Hunter was present for the whole thing," Hill says.

Lee and Bonnie Hill have lived separately, by court order, since the arrest and are forbidden from contacting one another.


46 posted on 02/13/2005 10:00:38 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Celibacy is a hands-on job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3556

This is on the Internet, but to be sure you could call the Boulder police.


47 posted on 02/13/2005 10:44:30 AM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Snapple

There's far more than two AIM chapters, just so you know; I used to speak regularly to Fern Matthias, who was one of the acting leaders of Los Angeles AIM. (She passed away a couple years ago, though. Shame; she was probably one of the most level-headed and active Indian activists I've ever met.) There's AIM chapters in virtually every major city of the US, not only in two locations. There's quite a few chapters out of the US, too. And for the most part, yes, they're autonomous.

However, the vast majority of them take their cues from the northern plains tribal activities (especially on Pine Ridge - which is just a hotbed of nastiness in a lot of cases), or they focus all of their attention on Leonard Peltier's case or on the mascot issues. A few of the AIM groups do silly things, too - like the California groups, which want to regulate the sale of sage and tobacco because they're sacred. And then there's a couple AIM groups who just want Native folks to overcome their difficulties and find a better way of life.

Leonard Peltier is not a leader of AIM. Many people, due to the Wounded Knee 1973 scenario, respect Peltier and do not want him to be imprisoned. But this doesn't mean that he's considered a leader of any given AIM chapter or AIM organization, regardless of how often his name's bandied about. Heck, his name was on the ballot for the Presidential election last year (at least, here in CA it was)... and he's still in prison. Doesn't sound like he's doing too well at leading.

One other note: not all AIM groups fight with each other, or are made up of ex-cons, terrorists, or drug dealers. Heck, the AIM chapters in Germany (I still get a kick out of the American Indian Movement being active in other countries) tend to be made up of Indian hobbyists who just want Native Americans to have it better than they do now.

The problem with a psuedo organization like AIM - which, by the by, has no official leadership except for whoever's got the biggest mouth (and trust me, after meeting most of the AIM "leadership", I can tell you they've got big mouths and very little to no brains as an average rule) and who can garner the most on-TV or on-radio time. This is why John Trudell's still considered a major AIM activist... he's a musician, so he attracts radio time.

Very few of the thousands of AIM members are goons with guns. You're thinking of the Pine Ridge arguments, which have nothing to do with AIM, but which have everything to do with who supposedly was at Pine Ridge during Wounded Knee 1973. And it's amazing how many hundreds of people claim to have been there, when in actuality there were only 30-40 people who were involved in the standoff.


48 posted on 02/14/2005 1:51:17 AM PST by Ladypixel (Not all Indian activists act like lefty Churchills... thank goodness!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Snapple
Personally, both kind of scare me. They fight with each other for power and call their opponents FBI spies.


Churchill's group called Anna an FBI spy. They killed her.
49 posted on 02/14/2005 10:00:11 AM PST by mugs99 (Restore the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ladypixel

I used the wrong word when I said chapters. I know they are all over. The Boulder Denver chapter and the Minneapolis people don't recognize each other. So there seem to be two AIM organizations both claiming to be the "one true AIM."

I am sure most people have good motives. I am focusing on some troublesome personalities.

They all claim to be AIM however.


50 posted on 02/14/2005 1:57:56 PM PST by Snapple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-148 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson