Ward Churchill: Treason In The Teepee

February 6, 2005

by Bob Newman

Ah, yes. The "T" word.

I was the first pundit to realize and state publicly that self-proclaimed Indian (the tribe he claims to be a member of says he never produced a shred of evidence that he has any Indian in him) Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado at Boulder could face charges under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2381, which states: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States [a natural-born or naturalized U.S. citizen], levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort [any type of aid that assists the enemy in any way] within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." Now, before you run off to your local hanging store to get a rope and some camera film, let's look at how "Professor" Churchill may have crossed the treason line. First, in case you didn't know (many Americans have forgotten this little tidbit), America is at war. Our declared enemy is al Qaeda and any other terrorist group with the stated goal of killing Americans. Now just a few words from al Qaeda's foremost cheerleader in 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."

"It may be that more 9/11s are necessary."

"The action was correct." (The attacks of 9-11 were legitimate and proper.)

Those words are surely being used by terrorists to assist them in recruiting new mass murderers into their fetid fold, as pro-terrorism words from Americans are wonderful recruiting tools. Ward Churchill has aided terrorists by giving them recruiting assistance and boosting their morale, and encouraging them by saying more 9-11-style attacks are needed to bring down America.

That's called treason. And as you read, treason is a crime punishable by death.

A few minutes after the state of the union address, Colorado Governor Bill Owens called in to my evening show, during which I cited the treason statute as I had on previous shows covering the "professor." My show is heard via the airwaves in 38 states and around the world via streaming audio (an Internet-based parlor trick), so the more I said "treason" the more the word caught on. Now the governor has apparently looked into the treason angle and agrees that Churchill has committed treason. So, too, have some people like MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, according to one of my listeners who watch MSNBC.

Treason, for all of those screaming that Churchill is covered by the First Amendment, is not protected speech.

And an inept and negligent Elizabeth Hoffman, who is somehow still president of the university despite her presiding over the most embarrassing period in the school's history, says regarding those decrying Churchill's treasonous actions: "The university will resist, to the utmost, such pressures or interference when exerted from without."

Um, pardon me, Betsy, but we the people of Colorado own the school you are running and you are our employee, as is Churchill. Get it?

If you still feel strongly that treason is cool, why not take it a step further and put your trigger finger where your mouth is by taking up arms against the United States? Churchill claims he has repeatedly engaged in armed struggle over the last 20 years, but he refuses to provide us with details of where he fought against whom and when he did so. Was it against the U.S. somewhere? He likes photos of himself adorned in camouflage while holding AK-47s, but where and when and under what circumstances those shots were taken, he won't say.

Perhaps all the evidence of him being a freedom fighter in a foreign land is lost in the same file cabinet his evidence of being an Indian is in.

But I don't want Churchill hanged. That would be ruining a perfectly good rope.

Bob Newman

About Ward Churchill's essay you wrote, "Those words are surely being used by terrorists." Surely you jest. I suspect that Islamic terrorists have never heard of Churchill, much less used his words in any capacity.

In other words, your opinion that Churchill's words are traitorous is worthless. Unless you have proof that terrorists are using his words, you have no case.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the difference between treason and sedition. The First Amendment doesn't protect treasonous acts but does protect seditious talk. The Alien and Sedition Acts were ruled unconstitutional 200 years ago; writings such as Churchill's remain legal today.

Incidentally, most Indians didn't live in teepees, so you might want to rethink the headline to your article. It's stereotypical.

Rob Schmidt
Publisher
PEACE PARTY
http://www.bluecorncomics.com