Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Ward Churchill, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell

These four public figures are bound together by dint of the controversial remarks or essay writings they made in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, which were widely reviled by a traumatized American public. Although their views span the ideological spectrum, they shared a tone deaf quality at odds with the collective experience of witness to that day. In this way, we can now tell each other apart---those individuals who were scripted agents of a conspiracy that plotted and massaged 9/11, as distinct from their intended audience, the unknowing souls who were shocked into a deep catharsis only they could know.

Taken together, the four can be viewed as cardinal points in a totally cohesive system that manufactures synthetic reality---both the false-flag version, and the regular varieties---wherein no element is left to chance, and both sides of every argument are undertaken. In hindsight, it isn't difficult to pick out the evidence of foreknowledge in the records of Coulter, Robertson and Falwell, who were all strident supporters of the Bush administration agenda from the start. But it came with a distinct understanding for me to see the noted critic of American imperialism, Ward Churchill, was also on the plot's payroll, tasked on the left flank with keeping the deepest layers of truth obscured while paying lip service to his liberal litanies.

The outraged blow back that cost Coulter and Churchill their jobs, and damaged the televangelists' standing and bottom lines, may have been planned out, or maybe not. Jonah Goldberg's canning of Coulter from the National Review Online on October 2, 2001, L’Affaire Coulter, Goodbye to all that, certainly sounds sincere from his end. But since a year later Coulter's new book was at number one on the New York Times best seller list, it's clear she adapted.

That the intense drama surrounding Churchill's opinion piece didn't surface until the beginning of 2005, over three years after its publication, begs the question how such an incendiary essay could be overlooked for so long. Churchill must have addressed inquisitive or antagonistic student audiences before, so what made it explode when it did?

I might hazard that a political issue needing defusing had arisen at that late point, so groundwork which had lain fallow, or perhaps had served another plan, was pressed into service to manufacture a scandal and deflect media attention in another direction---much like Nicholas Berg's organic beheading, coming when it did, coincidentally took the heat off of the torture images coming out of Abu Gharib.

In The Man in the Maelstrom: Ward Churchill speaks out on his controversial essay by Pamela White writing in the Boulder Weekly on Feb. 10, 2005, Churchill is explicit about the origins of his essay.
"Well, it was about that time - it was the early afternoon -[on the 11th] I got a call from the woman [Faith Townsend Attaglia? Michele Cheung?] who was the editor of Dark Night Field Notes... She said, 'We need a from-the-gut response on this, and we need it in time to post it tomorrow.'"
She neglected to finish the stanza, "and we need it from you," while Churchill neglects to tell us he is---or was, in 1999 at least---on the editorial board of Dark Night Field Notes.

Dark Night Press says it "is dedicated to the liberation of the Native Peoples in the Western hemisphere. It is intended as a way for those deeply involved in the struggle for freedom to share their thoughts and experiences from the field."

Look: "The United States Government War Against the American Indian Movement," dated Nov. 3, 1999, to see how utterly riddled by FBI ringers this corner of the globe has been, at least since the early 1970's escalation of the Nixon White House. In that article, AIM specifically calls Dark Night Field Notes a "front-operation" and "a misinformation campaign."

The web site for the Dark Night Field Notes is so securely computer coded none of the links will open on my computer, but I note a log-in button for "Agents"---which doesn't look ironic at all to my eye---along with a funding request for a medical clinic run by the Black Panthers, and I can't decide if that is too heavy-handed or too subtle.

Whoever the readership may be, (and I imagine it is a complex issue,) why would the subscribers to such a secure journal as Dark Night Field Notes be interested in a timely reading of Churchill's digressive, non-scholarly work, tossed off---unbelievably, I'll throw in---not only in a single day, but on that particular day, under an imperative that it be ready the next day?

Well, my foremost reading of the Churchill's essay, Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, (which the Boulder Weekly article tells us was actually posted online sometime on the evening of the 11th,) is as a tutorial on American crimes specific to Iraq, particularly on the damage done to Iraqi children. An unavoidable confluence of feeling is the result, combining the shock and feverish emotions of the attacks underway in New York and Arlington that morning, with the sense of the fluttering souls of "half-million dead Iraqi children...all of them under 12." Churchill specifically pinpoints that detail---saying it was "the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day."

Iraq is where Churchill's essay places the responsibility for generating the attacks of 9/11, just in faux-liberal fashion, he couches it as sympathy for a justifiable Iraqi rage and understandable desire for retaliation. Churchill is saying, in other words, that Iraq is his focus, because since it is rationally justifiable that they should have been the perpetrators of the attacks of 9/11, it therefore would follow that if somebody else did it, then they did it for Iraq.

He makes that point explicit in the Boulder Weekly quote:
"A communiqué from al-Qaeda, in which the relatively unknown group claimed responsibility for the attacks, would later confirm that the plight of Iraqi children was primary on the terrorists' list of grievances against the United States.
An even more succinct form of this would have it: Iraq should have attacked America, and if Iraq didn't, then Iraq is wrong.

"Ann Coulter, in her famously intemperate column of September 13, 2001 This is War, said this exact thing:
"This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.

"We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week."
However, this part of her message did not make a fuss as it was drowned out by all the media attention given to her better swimmers---but by ignoring what's under the public's nose, the idea is empowered into a type of code.

This thesis: that a bonding of a singularly Iraqi ectoplasmic presence tightly to the visceral memory of the day of the September 11th attack itself, is verified when Churchill later appended an undated 439-word "Addendum" to the bottom of his essay. Its purpose is limited and clear:
"The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things.

"For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins."
Churchill uses up the rest of his words on a laundry list of American outrages against the Indochinese, Korean, Japanese, German, Filipino, American Indian, Middle Passage Africans, and Chinese, but he corrects no errors, and by thoroughness he means only to offer up a contextualizing list for his formerly single-minded focus on Iraqi.

How clearly it is done, wherein the shadow can be evoked and given its mandate. In naming September 11th as a "counterattack," while calling up fresh spirit-ghosts from the last great American slaughter---the Iraqi harvest of the 1rst Gulf war---Churchill is playing with some powerful death mojo here. Whatever mystical or alchemical scenarios took place down at ground zero, they gave rise in our warriors a desire for dark-side retribution---we were told this on Face the Nation---a revenge which led not only to illegal and immoral war, but to especially abusive ones. This is the wound to our spirit that will be hard to overcome.

But it woke me up, so I thank them for it. As we are without a doubt moving out from the darkness of plausible deniablity and into the light of a clear paper trail.

Eventually Churchill redid the "work," turning it into what is credible for him---a 21,791-word essay The Ghosts of 9-1-1: Reflections on History, Justice and Roosting Chickens, annotated with a scholastic 179 footnotes, which was "published" in 2005. But this makes it incredible for him to have written something so sub-essay-esque to start with, on a day that "will forever live in infamy," then racing to electronically position it for some clandestine purpose online, But most odd, when it does become an issue, (for whatever synthetic reason,) he doesn't simply beg our forgiveness for his overwrought and under-diagrammed prose and apologize for his rough first draft. An apology worked for Jerry Falwell.

Churchill isn't lacking in professional integrity here, he's lacking in the fundaments of reality.

Staying with this theme, the actionable essay is officially maintained on the weird web site of a certain kersplebedeb, which is the link given in the Boulder Weekly article, and it was first seen there in a bot crawl on June 26, 2002. This could realistically be considered its open publication date. The relationship between Churchill and kersplebedeb is never explained properly, but a failed attempt is made on page titled, "why this article is on this website," so we know they know to ask the question.

But let's get a grip here, shall we? The business of life in America came to a screeching halt that morning (...except for some people, like the initiated...) Why would an obscure private-source journal speaking ostensibly to a tiny audience of heavily infiltrated and schismatic American Indian Movement members "need" to publish this opinion on September 12th?

Churchill has a major problem just maintaining a logical tense in his claim he wrote the piece on September 11th. He says for instance,
"Indeed, even the FBI's investigative reports on the combat teams' activities during the months leading up to September 11 make it clear that the members were not fundamentalist Muslims. Rather, it's pretty obvious at this point that they were secular activists."
Pretty obvious at what point? When he writes "since September 11," he's really saying, "since this morning." And he uses the term "combat teams" as his sole reference for what I know as "hijackers," or "terrorists," at least half a dozen times. Where did that off term come from?

Coupling this with the fact of not one reference to any actual person or event unfolding during the course of the day, along with his detachment from all emotion except anger, and I think it fair to surmise Churchill's essay was a philosophical position paper, written in advance of the date, and deconstruct it accordingly. The master Churchill is serving here is Straussian, not the Iraqi children he professes to with such distinct hypocrisy. Churchill is a very good double agent.

Some Purple Push Pins: Oh! the Au Jus of Roasting Chickens.

Now, here we can deal briefly with Churchill's infamous chef d'oeuvre remark, "little Eichmanns," a device I've personally identified when I spot it as "letting the Jews into the room so they can suck out all the air"---in other words, "...its all about us..." Or as the French would say, á la Mumbai, which describes the political expression like the recent Muslim on Hindu attack in the city of the same name, which also includes in an incongruent side story of Jewish suffering and vulnerability.

Earlier in his essay, Churchill spoke about the "onus of collective guilt," while twice using the term "good Germans" to describe those bureaucratic functionaries who make the choice to look away from evil rather then engage it. In doing so, he gratuitously "uses up" the option to equate "little Eichmanns" as being synonymous with the meaning of the anonymous "good Germans."

I hazard that a special meaning is meant in his use of the term, since the containing paragraph is an exceedingly strange container in an essay which is itself a standout in his corpus. It starts off in an odd vein of sarcastic vernacular, which Churchill then mines into a sort of open-dump categorization, where everyone is "braying incessantly and self-importantly into their cell phones," which shows us the emotions 9/11 brought up for him.

The term "little Eichmanns" cannot mean functionary or technocrat, as Churchill tried to amend later in a parry nonetheless, because he'd just used up that meaning, calling them "good Germans." "Eichmann" can only mean "bad German," with "little" meaning "not as effective an example of."

In the full context as Churchill expressed himself, his meaning couldn't be more simple and clear: that these people, many of whom he/we "saw" leaping to their deaths from the upper stories of the towers, got exactly what they deserved---a "proportional penalty equal to the passivity of their participation."
"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."
Janitors, waitresses, or even infants and girlfriends, for that matter, can be included in a compound form called "functionaries to the technocrats;" necessary, like ball bearings, to the meaning, and required for consistency---if you can see Mussolini's mistress hanging upside down in your mind's eye as I can.

All of this was exactly counterparted in Falwell's and Robertson's explicit directing of blame by pointing the finger at "the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians...the ACLU, People For the American Way." By the way---the last six words in Churchill's 5,140-word essay are "There is justice in such symmetry."

But what makes Churchill's sentiment unnerving, and vicious even, is that his only mention of the human toll of that day is to call it just desserts. Is his mien of cold detachment the "from-the-gut response" he says he was charged with? Was his essay received with such anger because it was no good---which is the ultimate meaning of demeaning? I often touch upon these same sore subjects, but I put some effort into it at least, and I've never been treated to such a response---at least not yet.

Churchill's primary mission is to reinforce the central facts of the official version---that Muslims flew airplanes into buildings, and that destroyed them.

I believe that "little Eichmanns" carries a special meaning, one which Hannah Arendt established in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, but one which couldn't be expressed until now. "Little Eichmann" refers to the banality of these particular reports of evil---the train schedules, showers, ovens; an old man calmly being hung. In current parlance: planes, Muslims and videotape.

The rise that comes up off of little Eichmann stems from the core fabrication behind the story of the holocaust. If we have come to see that we were lied into a war, can't we also see that we were lied out of one?

So, Churchill is a bookend to Coulter's intentionally infuriating diatribes. They represent a false polarity, artificially established and maintained as being representatives of life-giving yin and yang, only now we know they are not. They can only function like walls in a padded room---useful to bounce off of, sometimes, but that is all.

Churchill's essay is littered with the effort to extract and extend the maximum amount of fear possible in the consciousness of anyone paying him any mind. This fear factor is equally true in Rev Falwell's and Rev. Robertson's speech--especially gruesome coming from ministers we think of as called to comfort their flocks.

Find a logic in statements such as these of Churchill's:
"There is no reason, after all, to believe that the teams deployed in the assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon were the only such...

"To the contrary, there is every reason to expect that there are many other teams in place, tasked to employ altogether different tactics in executing operational plans at least as well-crafted as those evident on September 11, and very well equipped for their jobs.
Well, I might think, if I were a "terrorist" who wanted to stand up to an abusive power, that I'd put my very best effort into my first shot--you don't get many second chances like that in life, now do you? The legitimate ingredient in the success of the attacks was the element of surprise, which is then lost forever. How a college professor could be so ignorant, and how we all good be so ignorant too, is testament to the efficacy of their fear mongering campaign of.

[Insert image of orange-suited Guantanamo inmates on their knees here.]

Churchill is like the Energizer Bunny---he does go on:

This is to say that, since the assaults on the WTC and Pentagon were act of war – not "terrorist incidents" – they must be understood as components in a much broader strategy designed to achieve specific results. From this, it can only be adduced that there are plenty of other components ready to go, and that they will be used, should this become necessary in the eyes of the strategists. It also seems a safe bet that each component is calibrated to inflict damage at a level incrementally higher than the one before...
Here he seems almost to be bragging to knowledge of false-flag authorship within a shadow structure---since what was achieved was the specific result the attacks were designed for---"by his fruits you shall know him," it says in some other essay.

Since Churchill never addresses concepts such as potential false-flag authorship, or its concomitant---the real elephant in his living room---Jewish abuse of power, I suspect he's guilty of both. Just look at his cheap fear-mongering:

"This time, somewhere, perhaps in an Afghani mountain cave, possibly in a Brooklyn basement, maybe another local altogether – but somewhere, all the same – there's a grim-visaged (wo)man wearing a Clint Eastwood smile.

"Go ahead, punks," s/he's saying, "Make my day."

Of what will it consist this time? Anthrax? Mustard gas? Sarin? A tactical nuclear device?

That, too, is their choice to make."
This isn't nihilism so much as nonsense coming from a collage professor, but what is being revealed is the pathological insider's world view, free of the rationality of love and hurt and loss that binds up the collective world view for us outsiders. Sometimes keeping the secrets can be more disempowering. Especially such rigorously kept destructive messages.

I do not want to create or inhabit any part of the world Ward Churchill sees, and thus projects and creates. He is not of my tribe---not "one of us," born again on that day of 9/11. My intended audience in making such a statement will be able to easily decide for themselves if this code resonates with them. If not, Mr. Churchill's passionately articulated commitment to eradicating injustice will always still be there as an option, but in my opinion, it doesn't work anymore. When Churchill says, obscurely, that
"Braided Scoundrel-in-Chief, George Junior, lacking even the sense to be careful what he wished for, has teamed up with a gaggle of fundamentalist Christian clerics like Billy Graham to proclaim a "New Crusade" called "Infinite Justice" aimed at "ridding the world of evil."
He is carrying water for our team. I can see the compartmentalization of all the players---the academy types kept apart from the category of zealotry, then jealous of their face time with junior. To be a Zionist in bed with a Rev. Hagee has to be tough thing. The bitch goddesses and the Jewish landlords get to bring up the rear.

Churchill's displayed agenda and core missions, as an official agency asset then are:
  • Endorsement of Official 9/11 Theory Components: Muslims, Planes, Victims, Heroes,
  • Boldly Link Iraq Directly to the 9/11 Attacks
  • Incite & Manipulate an Atmosphere of Terror & Fear
  • Defend/Never Question Jewish and Israeli Self-Interests
  • Total Acceptance/No Accountability for American Government Failings
  • Infiltrate & Subvert Native American & Leftist Politics
Falwell's and Robertson's performance is much easier to deconstruct as it all takes place on the single level of what they think they reveal and what they think they shield.

First, watch the 1 minute and 22 second segment of the 700 Club interview from the morning of September 13, 2001. This is all that is found in the public record for now. The clip represents perhaps only a tenth of the total interview, but it will give you a flavor of the slick energy and graceful coordination underlying their presentation. In no way was this a casual or accidental exchange---nor do they appear to be visibly effected by events.


YouTube - Falwell and Robertson on The 700 Club after 9/11

It is quite interesting to me that a publicly broadcast live television show of such great topical interest could appear to effectively disappear, squashed by the heavy hands of some power-that-be. This is the way reality once was managed, before the internet came into existence and complicated the game. But I just know that somewhere in the wilds of Tennessee or Kentucky one very devote old lady has kept her daily tapings of the 700 Club safe as her tribute to the Lord, and we're going to get our hands on them, because, I imagine there has to be something there to account for this.

My supposition also stems from my recollection of once having seen the tape of the show, which begins with Robertson's memorable opening line, "Jerry, it's a delight to have you with us today! I recollect I was stunned by his lack of presence---or maybe decency, or decorum. Robertson choice of the word "delight" was a failure to mask his subconscious---and his ego even. 9/11 was going to be good for business!

Falwell let's slip his excitement in a grammatical glitch, after Robertson asks him, "Do you think that this is going to be the trigger of revival, a real revival in the Church where we truly turn back to God with all our heart?"

Falwell answers back, "It could be. I've never sensed a togetherness, a burden, a broken heart as I do in the Church today, and just 48 hours, I gave away a booklet I wrote 10 years ago. I gave it away last night on the Biblical position on fasting and prayer because I do believe that that is what we've got to do now-- fast and pray."

I think he wanted to say, "and just 48 hours into the New World Order too, think of that," but caught himself, so he begins to stumble, inelegantly putting the focus on his generosity rather then the Biblical position

People for the American Way has maintained a perfect transcript of the video:

Transcript of Pat Robertson's Interview with Jerry Falwell from the 9-13-01 edition of The 700 Club

The depth of the political equation behind religion's descent into worldly power is readily on display, despite Falwell's faulty logical progression
"Hitler's goal was to destroy the Jews among other things, and conquer the world. And, these Islamic fundamentalists, these radical terrorists, these Middle Eastern monsters are committed to destroying the Jewish nation, driving her into the Mediterranean, conquering the world. And, we are the great Satan. We are the ultimate goal."
The engendering of fear and the blaming of Muslims (three country's full) is shameless:
JERRY FALWELL: And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters; the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats, what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact, if in fact God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.
I ask you to compare Falwell's and Robertson's rhetoric with Arafat's little known expression of condolences after the attacks, as found I could find only in Irish source, the Thomas Crosbie archive:
"Arafat and his top advisers huddled at his seaside office in Gaza City, watching the events unfold on television. Arafat later emerged to speak to reporters.

"We are completely shocked. It's unbelievable," he said. "We completely condemn this very dangerous attack, and I convey my condolences to the American people, to the American president and to the American administration, not only in my name but on behalf of the Palestinian people."
Such sentiments of identification with Israel's "plight" were neatly echoed dozens and scores of times in the aftermath of 9/11, although the mention of barbarians might be the first in the record.

Falwell drops a name for some reason:
"I talked this morning with Tom Rose publisher of the Jerusalem Post, an orthodox Jew, and he said, "Now America knows in a horrible way what Israel's been facing for 53 years at the hand of Arafat and other terrorists and radicals and barbarians."

It is interesting that Falwell brought up this name. Rose, an arch-conservative, was hired as publisher of the Jerusalem Post in 1998 and fired in 2004. In 2002 he hired Bret Stephens "a 28-year-old neoconservative wunderkind," to edit the paper, and he must have lived to regret it, since the pair remain locked in a court battle over some rather nasty personal things that were said. Stephens moved on to a slot on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and a resume like that literally squeals "Company employee" in my ear. So, I wonder if Falwell wasn't just making gratuitous small talk, but showing off his props code instead.

(The New York Observer really was the best at reporting this sort of story. I'll be sorry to see it go if it does.)

But the crux of the problem in the Middle East is encapsulated in an editorial Rose wrote for The Jerusalem Post called CLINTON'S FLAWED SYMMETRY, where Rose hazards "the main problem is that Israel's intense desire for peace has raised expectations to astronomical levels on the Palestinian side, including the hope that Israel will commit suicide for peace."

Comments such as this---wherein Rose combines paranoia, schizophrenia, and suicidal ideation, with dissociation, projection, and rank, utter stupidity, may indicate a diminution is occurring in the collective Jewish consciousness rather than its ascension. I will say that if I had to enter into the sorts of political contracts that AIPAC, and Jewish Zionistas made with the millennial conservative Christian movement, as represented by the likes of Rev. Hagee and the late Rev. Falwell, I would also likely express such demented views. So maybe it would be best if Jews just stayed in their own heads, and stopped projecting anything---one way or the other.

As his CV states his goal is to "advance public policy concepts from a conservative, Jewish-Christian worldview on the Bauer & Rose Radio program," therein may lie the problem, as it isn't good for two of the West's major religions to gang up on the third, the way the did, for starters, with the illegal invasion of Iraq.

OK. Time to get to Ann.

In her famous 9/13/01 piece in the National Review Online, "This Is War: We should invade their countries. With it's famous quote:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
She was forced to backtrack somewhat. In an interview published in the Washington Post on October 2, 2001 by Howard Kurtz, National Review Cans Columnist Ann Coulter
The Washington Post, she was clarified thusly:
"Coulter says her line about "convert them to Christianity" has been misconstrued and was aimed at those celebrating the attacks. "I wasn't talking about Muslims generally," she says. "I was talking about the crazed homicidal maniacs dancing in the streets."

There are two major issues wrong with this treatment. One, is the forgotten lead-in to the original quote about "convert them to Christianity", which to my mind is acceptable hyperbole. But what preceded that statement is the more actionable opinion. Coulter first wrote,
"We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack."
Ann is right: war is war. But illegal and immoral war is a crime against humanity. So setting forth to attack any and all handy targets that might possibly be responsible for the attack, is the height of cruelty and stupidity.

Furthermore, her narrowing down of the targets of her ire: "I was talking about the crazed homicidal maniacs dancing in the streets."

The only problem with this though is, I've proven to my satisfaction that all the many images of Palestinians and Arabs celebrating in the streets in the aftermath of the Tower's destruction, were false, stage-managed false-flag public relations stunts, most likely a false-flag effort by Israeli agents.

I will repeat Arafat's expression of sympathy:
"We are completely shocked. It's unbelievable," he said. "We completely condemn this very dangerous attack, and I convey my condolences to the American people, to the American president and to the American administration, not only in my name but on behalf of the Palestinian people."
The difference between the sincere truth and the synthetic manipulation is becoming more and more clear every day.

More radical comments by prof weighed By Arthur Kane Denver Post Feb. 05, 2005

Text of Churchill statement Denver Post

Churchill's identity revealed in wake of Nazi comment Editor's Report/ Indian Country Today posted: February 03, 2005

On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality

Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation, plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification Wikipedia page

Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy Wikipedia page

The Man in the Maelstrom Ward Churchill speaks out on his controversial essay By Pamela White Boulder Weekly Feb. 10, 2005

Interview with Ward Churchill: The Man in the Maelstrom (at

Ward Churchill Responds to Criticism of "Some People Push Back" Boulder, Colorado 1/ 31/05

I want to intrude here to say a little something about names like these:
Stories that Matter,
Girls with Wings,
Research In Motion
Dark Night field Notes
Steven War Ran
a lit-tle some-thing

No comments:

Post a Comment