"It's amazing that the more we look at Ward Churchill, the more outrageous, treasonous statements we hear from Churchill," Owens said. "Churchill has clearly called for violence against the state, and no country is required to subsidize its own destruction. That's what we're doing with Ward Churchill."

In the question-and-answer interview, Churchill is asked what should happen to America. "I want the state gone: Transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether."

Another question: What are the solutions to U.S. misdeeds? Churchill answers in the interview: "One of the things I've suggested is that it may be that more 9/11's are necessary."

One of the striking aspects of the Ward Churchill scandal is how public his views about America and terrorism were before all this happened. Churchill is the author of numerous books and articles expressing the view that America is a genocidal empire comparable to Nazi Germany, that terrorists are really freedom fighters and that the 9/11 atrocity was just deserts (these are of course also widespread views among American academics generally). In 1998 Churchill wrote a book called the Pacifism as Pathology which is essentially a case for violent revolution. So why did this all come out now?

The answer is that Churchill was invited as a second academic guest this spring by the professor in charge of a program at Hamilton College that brings lecturers and professors to campus. This professor is Nancy Rabinowitz (recently featured on FrontPage). Her first guest was Susan Rosenberg which caused a scandal and provoked reporters to examine Churchill's resume and turn up his notorious article. A further spur was a student at Hamilton whose father, killed in the terrorist attack of 9/11, was referred to by Churchill in the article as a "little Eichmann.") The scandal was caused by the fact that Rosenberg was a member of America's first political terrorist cult the Weather Underground, and was a convicted would be bomber (whom Clinton had pardoned). Rabinowitz invited Rosenberg because she is a political comrade. Rabinowitz is related by politics and marriage to Kathy Boudin and her network of Weatherman terrorists and supporters.

But what about Churchill? This puzzled me until I discovered that his 1998 book (The Pathology of Pacificism) is dedicated to Diana Oughton, herself a member of the Weatherman terrorist organization. Oughton inadvertently blew herself up making a bomb intended for a social dance at Fort Dix where it would have killed Army draftees and their dates. In other words, what has gone unnoticed in the media so far is that Nancy Rabinowitz's little academic program at Hamilton is actually a concerted effort to indoctrinate Hamilton students in the views of terrorist supporters. The only reason it is a scandal is that her timing is bad. Nancy, we're in the midst of a war on terror, in case you didn't notice. Actually, you probably did. Nice. - David Horowitz

To the extent that Churchill was hired because he claimed to be a Native American, he would seem to be guilty of academic fraud. But the situation is worse than this.

Thomas Brown, a professor of sociology at Lamar University, has written a paper that outlines what looks like a more conventional form of academic fraud on Churchill's part. According to Brown, Churchill fabricated a story about the U.S. Army intentionally creating a smallpox epidemic among the Mandan tribe in 1837, by simply inventing almost all of the story's most crucial facts, and then attributing these "facts" to sources that say nothing of the kind.

"One has only to read the sources that Churchill cites to realize the magnitude of his fraudulent claims for them," Brown writes. "We are not dealing with a few minor errors here. We are dealing with a story that Churchill has fabricated almost entirely from scratch. The lack of rationality on Churchill's part is mind-boggling." (Brown's essay can be read here: http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm.)

Similar charges have been leveled against Churchill by University of New Mexico law professor John Lavelle, a Native American scholar who has documented what appear to be equally fraudulent claims on Churchill's part regarding the General Allotment Act, one of the most important federal laws dealing with Indian lands. (Lavelle also accuses Churchill of plagiarism).

The little Injun that could

© 2005 Universal Press Syndicate

If Ward Churchill loses his job teaching at the University of Colorado, he could end up giving Howard Dean a real run for his money to head the Democratic National Committee.

Churchill already has a phony lineage and phony war record – just like John Kerry! (Someone should also check out Churchill's claim that he spent Christmas 1968 at Wounded Knee.) In 1983, Churchill met with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and later felt it necessary to announce that his group, the American Indian Movement, "has not requested arms from the Libyan government." In 1997, he was one of the "witnesses" who spoke at a "Free Mumia" event in Philadelphia on behalf of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.


Come to think of it, Churchill could give Hillary a run for her money. All that's left for Churchill to do now is meet with Al Sharpton and kiss Suha Arafat.

Churchill's claim that he is an Indian isn't an incidental boast, like John Kerry pretending to be Irish. It is central to his career, his writing, his political activism. Churchill has been the co-director of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, the vice chairperson of the American Indian "Anti-Defamation" Council, and an associate professor and coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado.

By Churchill's own account, a crucial factor in his political development was "being an American Indian referred to as 'chief' in a combat unit" in Vietnam, which made him sad. This is known to con men everywhere as a "two-fer."

In addition to an absence of evidence about his Indian heritage, there is an absence of evidence that he was in combat in Vietnam. After the POW Network revealed that Churchill had never seen combat, he countered with this powerful argument: "They can say whatever the hell they want. That's confidential information, and I've never ordered its release from the Department of Defense. End of story." Maybe we should ask John Kerry to help Churchill fill out a form 180.

In one of his books, "Struggle for the Land," Churchill advances the argument that one-third of America is the legal property of Indians. And if you believe Churchill is a real Indian, he also happens to be part owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.

In his most famous oeuvre, the famed 9-11 essay calling the 9-11 World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns," he said "Arab terrorists" – his quotes – had simply "responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq" by giving Americans "a tiny dose of their own medicine."

Having blurted out "Iraq" in connection with 9-11 in a moment of pique, Churchill had to backpedal when the anti-war movement needed to argue that Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Arab terrorism. He later attached an "Addendum" to the essay saying that the 9-11 attack was not only payback for Iraq, but also for various other of this country's depredations especially against "real Indians" (of which he is not one).

In light of the fact that Churchill's entire persona, political activism, curriculum vitae, writings and university positions are based on his claim that he's an Indian, it's rather churlish of him to complain when people ask if he really is one. But whenever he is questioned about his heritage, Churchill rails that inquiries into his ancestry are "absolutely indefensible."

Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eighth Indian "on a good day" to claiming he is "three-sixteenths Cherokee," to claiming he is one-sixty-fourth Cherokee through a Revolutionary War era ancestor named Joshua Tyner. (At least he's not posing as a phony Indian math professor.) A recent investigation by the Denver Post revealed that Tyner's father was indeed married to a Cherokee. But that was only after Joshua's mother – and Churchill's relative – was scalped by Indians.

By now, all that's left of Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry is his assertion: "It is just something that was common knowledge in my family." (That, and his souvenir foam-rubber "tommyhawk" he bought at Turner Field in Atlanta.)

Over the years, there were other subtle clues the university might have noticed.

Churchill is not in the tribal registries kept since the 1800s by the federal government.

No tribe will enroll him – a verification process Churchill dismisses as "poodle papers" for Indians.

In 1990, Churchill was forced to stop selling his art as "Indian art" under federal legislation sponsored by then-representative – and actual Indian! – Ben Nighthorse Campbell, that required Indian artists to establish that they are accepted members of a federally recognized tribe. Churchill responded by denouncing the Indian artist who had exposed him. (Hey, does anybody need 200 velvet paintings of Elvis playing poker with Crazy Horse?)

In the early '90s, he hoodwinked an impecunious Cherokee tribe into granting him an "associate membership" by telling them he "wrote some books and was a big-time author." A tribal spokeswoman explained: He "convinced us he could help our people." They never heard from him again – yet another treaty with the Indians broken by the white man. Soon thereafter, the tribe stopped offering "associate memberships."

A decade ago, Churchill was written up in an article in News From Indian Country, titled, "Sovereignty and Its Spokesmen: The Making of an Indian." The article noted that Churchill had claimed membership in a scrolling series of Indian tribes, but over "the course of two years, NFIC hasn't been able to confirm a single living Indian relative, let alone one real relative that can vouch for his tribal descent claim."

When real Indians complained to Colorado University in 1994 that a fake Indian was running their Indian Studies program, a spokeswoman for the CU president said the university needed "to determine if the position was designated for a Native American. And I can't answer that right now." Apparently it was answered in Churchill's favor since he's still teaching.

If he's not an Indian, it's not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university. In his book, "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present," Churchill denounces Jews for presuming to imagine the Holocaust was unique. In the chapter titled "Lie for Lie: Linkages between Holocaust Deniers and Proponents of the Uniqueness of the Jewish Experience in World War II," Churchill calls the Third Reich merely "a crystallization" of Christopher Columbus' ravages of his people (if he were an Indian).

His research apparently consisted of watching the Disney movie "Pocahontas," which showed that the Indians meant the European settlers no harm. (That's if you don't count the frequent scalpings.)

Even the credulous Nation magazine – always on red alert for tales of government oppression – dismissed Churchill's 1988 book "Agents of Repression" about Cointelpro-type operations against the American Indian Movement, saying the book "does not give much new information" and "even a reader who is inclined to believe their allegations will want more evidence than they provide." If The Nation won't buy your anti-U.S. government conspiracy theories, Kemosabe, it's probably time to pack up the old teepee and hit the trail of tears.

In response to the repeated complaints from Indians that a phony Indian was running CU's Indian Studies program, Churchill imperiously responded: "Guess what that means, guys? I'm not taking anyone's job, there wouldn't be an Indian Studies program if I wasn't coordinating it ... They won't give you a job just because you have the paper." This white man of English and Swiss-German descent apparently believes there are no actual Indians deserving of his position at CU. (No wonder the Indians aren't crazy about him.)

As long as we're all agreed that there are some people who don't deserve jobs at universities, why isn't Churchill one of them? - She Who Owns All She Surveys

Churchill, whose integrity has been challenged since news broke earlier last month of his paper blaming victims of 9-11 for the attacks, made an Indian-theme serigraph in 1981 called "Winter Attack" and printed 150 copies.

But one of the buyers, Duke Prentup, told Denver's CBS affiliate KCNC-TV of a stunning discovery he made last month while flipping through a book of illustrations by the late artist Thomas E. Mails.

The work signed by Churchill virtually is a mirror image of Mails' 1972 pen and ink sketch, "The Mystic Warriors of the Plains."

KCNC reporter Raj Chohan took a cameraman to Churchill's office Thursday to confront him with the revelation and received an angry response.

"Get that camera out of my face," Churchill said.

Chohan followed the professor down the hallway to his office, trying to show him Mails' piece and asking to explain why it "looks like you ripped it off."


Artwork signed by Ward Churchill (KCNC-TV, Denver)


Original artwork by Thomas Mails(KCNC-TV, Denver)

That prompted Churchill to take a swing at Chohan.

The reporter said: "Sir, that's assault, you can't do that. Can I ask you about this? It looks like you copied it."

Churchill: "I was just grabbed by the arm. And that [camera] gets out of my face."

Chohan: "Sir, we're allowed to take these pictures, this is a public space."

Churchill: "You're not allowed to grab me by the arm."

Chohan: "He didn't touch you sir, we've got it all on tape. Sir, this is called Winter Attack. It's a serigraph by you. It looks like it was copied from Thomas Mails artwork. Can we talk to you about that please?"

Churchill came out of his office several minutes later and agreed to talk, acknowledging his artwork is based on the Mails piece.

He insisted, however, he disclosed that during its initial release.

"It is an original art work by me, after Thomas Mails," Churchill said. "The fact that the purchaser was ignorant of the reality of what was perfectly publicly stated at the time the edition was printed is not my responsibility."

However, no credit was given to Mails on the artwork, and Churchill refused to provide documentation to back his claims.

Intellectual property attorney Jim Hubbell told the Denver station such documentation, if it exists, still would not protect Churchill from copyright infringement unless he had consent from Mails.

The son of the late Thomas Mails told KCNC the family retains the copyright.

"My father invested a great deal of himself in his work, and from that he developed a great fierceness in defending his work," Ryan Mails said. "I cannot imagine he would ever grant permission to anyone to copy one of his pieces."