Skip to content

More Tweets From Marc

September 28, 2009
The image of Assata Shakur, a "Freedom Fighter" according to Marc Lamont Hill

The image of Assata Shakur, a "Freedom Fighter" according to Marc Lamont Hill

Marc Lamont Hill is at it again, posting twenty tweets on my reply. First the important one:

“Assata Shakur is an American hero & freedom fighter. I’ll always stand next to her.”

This says everything you need to know about Hill. He believes Communist terrorists — Shakur was a member of the “Black Liberation Army” — literally at war with the most democratic and racially integrated society in the world are heroes. And he believes that Shakur is innocent, which makes him as dumb as the average radical believer. (Shakur killed the policeman in a pitched battle 10 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.)

The only new Hill tweets worth mentioning are numbers 10 and 11:

“The whole point of the segment wasn’t that I have expertise on Iran (which is slightly outside of the aforementioned range of expertise) but that O’Reilly wanted to get a sense of how far Ahmadinejad would have to go for the anti-war Left to support military intervention.”

On The Factor Hill made a stab at six months, and when O’Reilly called him on that said “Well maybe three” — or words to that effect (I’m reconstructing this from memory).

The correct answer Mr. Hill — the honest answer — is never.  The Left is never going to support military intervention by the United States against a Third World power confronting the “Amerikkkan empire.” If the left couldn’t support an intervention against Saddam Hussein, what makes Ahmadinejad worse?

Of course there is one caveat. Just as most — but not all — of  the left was too embarrassed immediately after 9/11 to oppose America’s intervention in Afghanistan, so most of the left will support a response to Ahmadinejad if he attacks the American mainland. But in that scenario the Left is never going to side with its own country against even so evil a dictator as Ahmadinejad.  But Marc Lamont is either too stupid to know this or too deceitful to admit it. Which is another reason that the $30,000 or $40,000 Fox is evidently paying him to be a “contributor” is a waste and an insult.

Advertisements
24 Comments
  1. David Thomson permalink
    September 28, 2009 1:55 pm

    Marc Lamont Hill is the stereotypical liberal knee jerker. One gets the impression that the Daily Kos provides him with his daily talking points. I don’t think Hill is capable of an independent thought. He also has no practical reason for doing so! Hill is amply compensated financially only because he represents the “authentic” black left. Neither Fox nor Columbia University would give him the time of day if he held more moderate views.

    • September 28, 2009 4:40 pm

      Thank you for the support, but please don’t call this radical a liberal.

      • David Thomson permalink
        September 28, 2009 6:19 pm

        Marc Lamont Hill is objectively speaking a radical—but ironically I suspect he perceives himself to be something of a moderate liberal. The same, of course, also holds true regarding Barack Obama. Yesterday’s purportedly non-violent radicals are often today’s middle-of-the-roaders.

        • Swemson permalink
          September 28, 2009 6:28 pm

          David;

          Do you believe that BHO actually believes all that he says or not ?

          I’m constantly perplexed by this question…

          Half the time I think that he’s just another lying Chicago style political thug who’s silently laughing at our gullibility all the time, & sometimes I actually think that he’s a true believer…

          What do you think ?

          • fiftyfifty permalink
            September 29, 2009 2:44 am

            Where is that school of thugs in Chicago Who runs the city of Chicago I’ve lived here my hold life. you people are gullibility Marc Hill is making money why snap on Hill. O’Reilly is the goon here get up his ass. if you every want to come to the hood let me know swemson.

            • Swemson permalink
              September 29, 2009 9:59 am

              From the way you write, it sounds like that’s the school that you attended… If you hadn’t dropped out when you were 8 years old and stayed a bit longer, you might be able to write a 4 line post with LESS than 10 spelling and grammatical errors.

              It’s no wonder that you’re unable to see what’s been going on around you all your life.

            • jackbelias permalink
              September 29, 2009 10:26 am

              Yeah I can see the 4th grade education in your post. Too bad you did’nt stick around for 5th grade.

              Leftists tend to be a bit behind the curve, its why communism seems so appealing to you. They want what better, smarter people can have. You blame others for your ignorance when its nature you should really blame. Nature isnt nice, it favors some but not others.

              Stop blaming others for the curse inflicted upon you, it really isnt even your place to question nature or its laws. Have more respect and accept what you are.

          • Vince permalink
            September 29, 2009 2:53 pm

            Obama is not a real thug, a real thug can and will fight. Obama is a weak little fast talking wimp. He has to pay people to fight for him. What is Hills PHD for? African American studies? That’s a class or two that’s all.

            • Swemson permalink
              September 29, 2009 3:48 pm

              Vince:

              To me, the boss of a gang of thugs who do his dirty work is also a thug.. In much the same way that someone who pays to have someone killed is also a murderer IMHO…

              But I absolutely agree with you that personally, he’s nothing more than a pathetic coward…

              I think Nancy Reagan could probably kick the crap out of him… & boy, wouldn’t that be fun to watch…

      • George Bruce permalink
        September 28, 2009 7:55 pm

        Agreed. Goldwater and Reagan were liberals in the proper sense of the word. JFK was also. Hill and Obama are leftists or socialists, whichever you prefer. They don’t have much to do with liberty. I hate even calling them “progressives,” as I see nothing progressive in their ideology.

        • David Thomson permalink
          September 29, 2009 10:36 am

          Marc Lamont Hill does not openly advocate violence. In his neck of the woods—-that makes him a moderate and liberal fellow. He is stunned by any accusations of personal radicalism. You may even be hurting his feelings. This mindset became the norm during the Martin Luther King, Jr. era. He was also a political radical who bluntly strived to turn our country into a socialist paradise. King’s own writings make this abundantly clear. And yet, most Americans today perceive King to have been a relatively moderate individual only because he was nonviolent.

      • mlc822 permalink
        September 29, 2009 11:47 pm

        OMG! what a fun way to find that Frankie Beverly and Maze are still around!!

  2. jbtrevor permalink
    September 28, 2009 3:39 pm

    Does Bill O’Reilly know of his twitter
    “Assata Shakur is an American hero & freedom fighter. I’ll always stand next to her.”?

    I can’t believe Bill would continue to let this “pinhead” on his show if he knows about that. David, please give Bill a call.
    Julie

    • Swemson permalink
      September 28, 2009 6:24 pm

      I don’t think Bill will care…

      I think that Hill’s there specifically so that he can make an ass of himself on TV !

  3. Ronald Wieck permalink
    September 28, 2009 6:04 pm

    David,

    Alan Colmes routinely referred to members of the Hate-America left as liberals. Leslie Cagan, Medea Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan, and Janeane Garofalo were all transformed and sanitized by Colmes’s taxonomical magic (no, he was not simply mistaken–nobody is quite that confused). What prompts a self-described “rational liberal” to make a horse’s ass of himself by promoting disingenuous nonsense?

  4. September 28, 2009 11:40 pm

    Hill was on Bulls and Bears, of all shows, yesterday. Why on earth is a professor of hip-hop on a show about Wall Street? He made a fairly boring show unwatchable. I will never understand why FOX has him on all the time, although I will admit that he is funny on RedEye. There’s a lesson in that: Hill is good when he’s there to be a smart-aleck and not to be taken seriously. He’s just not up to Factor snuff, and he’s certainly no economist.

    Then again, I’ll never understand why FOX does a lot of things, like give Geraldo a show and take Malkin off the air, or keep Beck at 5 o’clock and Shep Smith at 7, when Beck and Cavuto have superior shows to Van Susteren and Smith, respectively, and should be in primetime.

    I say they should replace him with Beckel or Colmes or another leftist, but one who’s more intelligent and qualified to discuss politics.

    • jbtrevor permalink
      September 29, 2009 5:50 am

      jdamn,

      you said:

      “I say they should replace him with Beckel or Colmes or another leftist, but one who’s more intelligent and qualified to discuss politics.”

      I heard Van Jones was looking for work…LOL

  5. David Forsmark permalink
    September 28, 2009 11:40 pm

    Hey, when writers and editors of The Nation appear on television, they are generally referred to as “liberal” (when they are labeled at all) as though they are the equivalent of The New Republic, or something. Of course, calling anything Communist, even if it professes to be, is McCARTHYISM!

    • September 29, 2009 12:49 pm

      I asked David, in person, this question in the late 80’s: “Are liberals Communists? Are Communists liberals?” He was stumped by this question and a few years back he said not the call them liberals but “leftists?” So I rewrote the question.

      You wrote, “Of course, calling anything Communist, EVEN IF IT PROFESSES TO BE” is something I have been writing about ever since I started writing here at FPM.

      My question: “Why is the Communist Party USA left out of public discussion and analysis?” What was the CPUSA role in Vietnam and Central America and now Iraq, Afghanistan, and the whole Middle East including Iran, Lebanon/Hamas/Hezbollah and Israel?

      When CPUSA FRONTS LIKE THE UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE HOLD A “PEACE” RALLY, WHY CAN’T I BRING UP THAT UNITED IS RUN BY LESLIE CAGAN AND JUDITH LEBLANC BOTH “COMMUNIST” MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY USA? DON’T YOU THINK THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO JOIN SUCH A PROTEST BECAUSE OF THE WORD “PEACE” AND WHAT THE REAL DEFINITION IS? WOULDN’T THESE NAIVE AND GULLIBLE PEOPLE LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY WARRING FACTIONS THIS GROUP, AND THEIR LEADERS, HAVE ACTUALLY SUPPORTED AND FUNDED WITH MONIES FROM PEOPLE WHO GAVE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE WORD “PEACE?” WOULDN’T THOSE WHO GAVE FUNDS ALSO LIKE TO KNOW WHO AND WHAT CAUSE THAT MONEY IS ACTUALLY GOING TO???

      When the people of the United States learn of the role of the COMMUNIST PARTY USA, and their fronts, they will rise up even more than they are now concerning ACORN and many other groups now the focus of Glenn Beck.

  6. Sam Deakins permalink
    September 29, 2009 2:24 am

    O’Reilly show segment with Mark Lamont Cranston (Only da Shadow know) Hill and some cute black chick:

    O’Reilly: OK, you heard my talking points memo on the demise of Socks the cat from the Clinton White House. What say you Dr. Shadow er…Hill?

    Hill: HmmmHmmmHmmmBarack HusseinObamaHMMMHmmmHmmmmBarackHusseinObamaHmmmHmmmHmmm.

    CBC: Socks is another victim of the Clinton machine.

    O’Reilly: Yes, talking points agrees, Socks, was literally thrown under the bus.

    Hill: HmmmHmmmHmmmBarack HusseinObamaHMMMHmmmHmmmmBarackHusseinObamaHmmmHmmmHmmm.

    CBC: I have to agree that Socks like Obama was half black and half white and fluffy.

    O’Reilly: Yes, and with the new White House dog (not a Michelle slur) named Ho (again not a Michelle slur) ..er…I mean Bo being half white and half black it adds to the vast right wing conspiracy theories surrounding our firts half black and half white president..does it not Dr. Hill?

    Hill: HmmmHmmmHmmmBarack HusseinObamaHMMMHmmmHmmmmBarackHusseinObamaHmmmHmmmHmmm.

    CBC: Bill, may I say that Socks was just as liberal and progressive as Bo the dog.

    O’Reilly: Yes, that may be true, CBC. OK, Dr Hill, I’ll give you the last word.

    Hill: HmmmHmmmHmmmBarack HusseinObamaHMMMHmmmHmmmmBarackHusseinObamaHmmmHmmmHmmm.

  7. Bob Meyer permalink
    September 29, 2009 7:55 am

    David, why you are attacking this semi-literate rap expert is beyond me.

    There is nothing more effective in fighting bad policies than to have those policies defended by a moron. Hill’s argumentation is so poor that he convinces audiences of the opposite of his positions. This man is a gold mine for opponents of big government.

    Rather than attack him you should point all your liberal acquaintances towards Hill as the finest example of modern radical thinking.

  8. September 29, 2009 12:33 pm

    There are Blacks who will defend and legitimize Obama on every issue only because he is Black!

    How many Blacks voted for Obama only because he was Black? I have heard that up to 92% of Blacks voted for him. I would even say that Michael Steel, head of the Republican Party, voted for him ONLY BECAUSE HE IS BLACK! Isn’t that against Martin Luther King’s “Dream” and yet they praise his holiday and his “Dream?” Colin Powell voted for OBAMA ONLY BECAUSE HE IS BLACK!

    AM I THE RACIST FOR BRINGING UP THE RACISTS?

    MLK’S “DREAM” IS A NIGHTMARE AND LAMONT HILL IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE!!!

Trackbacks

  1. The Marc Lamont Hill Affair « NewsReal Blog
  2. Kincaid: Fox News Fires Marc Lamont Hill « NewsReal Blog

Comments are closed.