Green Room

O’Reilly’s Best Radical Friend: 9/11 Victims Deserved It

posted at 7:28 am on October 7, 2009 by

If you read the post I wrote yesterday about Marc Lamont Hill you know that the Fox News analyst and frequent guest on Bill O’Reilly’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” is a radical leftist. He, I showed yesterday linking to several posts at David Horowitz’s NewsRealblog, admires black racists and extremists like Assata Shakur and Khallid Muhammad. They are his heroes.

And still O’Reilly takes this man serious and ignores his radicalism.

Perhaps this evidence of Hill’s radical beliefs will encourage O’Reilly – and Fox News as a whole – to oust him:

Hill: “He has the right to make [those comments], in fact he has the responsibility to make [those comments] as an academic if he believes them to be true… and if he can empirically substantiate them. And I think he’s done that.”

Hill said that about Ward Churchill. Churchill had written an op-ed saying the victims of 9/11 had themselves to thank for the attacks. They, Churchill said, were “little Eichmanns” who deserved to die because of their complicity in the grand American conspiracy to dominate the world.

Notice that Hill didn’t merely say Churchill was right to say what he said “if he believes” those words “to be true,” but that he, Hill, believes Churchill has “empirically substantiated” these comments (that the victims of 9/11 were “little Eichmanns”).

Hill isn’t a truther like Obama’s former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: he’s worse. He actually believes that the victims of 9/11 deserved to die.

And you know what’s even worse than that? He made those comments on the “O’Reilly Factor.” He said Churchill was right to blame the victims of 9/11 for their own horrible deaths and O’Reilly asked him back on nonetheless. Not once, but dozens of times.

Incredible.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why should he be ousted from Fox News? Should they only allow people with whom you agree? By all means, point out that he’s a radical so people know, but I think it’s great that Fox News tries to keep it truly “Fair and Balanced.” Besides, this guy is hilarious on Red Eye.

Bill Scrunty on October 7, 2009 at 7:35 AM

O’Reilly is writing a book on O. Guess who the ghost-writer is – none other than Marc Lamont Hill.

O’Reilly want to make money & sold himself to O. Shame.

Anita on October 7, 2009 at 7:35 AM

I don’t mind fair and balanced. However, I do believe that should you claim to be one thing and secretly believe another, that makes you a hypocrite, NOT fair and balanced.

If O’Reilly is a closet lib, then come out of the closet. Hell, they had Alan Colmes on Hannity’s show all those years. And even though Colmes made me want to retch most of the time, it DID give the libs a chance to blather all they wanted. It was fair and balanced, so to speak.

The fact that O’Reilly is chummin’ around with this sort of person just confirms what I’ve believed about him all along: He ain’t no conservative.

Mad Mad Monica on October 7, 2009 at 8:22 AM

I think you guys are missing the point of having Hill on. It makes for spicy debate because he’s a radical. If he’s wrong about (almost) everything (and he is), that should become evident during the debate.

Daggett on October 7, 2009 at 8:26 AM

O’Reilly is writing a book on O. Guess who the ghost-writer is – none other than Marc Lamont Hill.

Anita on October 7, 2009 at 7:35 AM

Seriously? Wow.

BadgerHawk on October 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM

The fact that O’Reilly is chummin’ around with this sort of person just confirms what I’ve believed about him all along: He ain’t no conservative.

I knew he wasn’t a conservative when he started going after the oil companies. I don’t think a talk show host should have to publicly declare which side of the fence he sits on. It sounds like you are smart enough to judge him based on his words, actions, and associations, and I believe the rest of his audience is smart enough to do the same.

I also don’t believe that O’Reilly believes he is a liberal. Personally, I think he’s just a populist. If people are mad about gas prices, he attacks the oil companies. If they’re mad about sex offenders getting off too easy, he’ll talk about that. It’s probably why his ratings are so high.

Bill Scrunty on October 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM

By all means, point out that he’s a radical so people know, but I think it’s great that Fox News tries to keep it truly “Fair and Balanced.

By that reasoning, FOX should also have David Duke as a regular commentator. Having radicals of either stripe is offensive. Although I don’t watch O’Reilly regularly, partly because I can’t stomach O’Reilly any more, one frequest guest I used to see was the ultimate race huckster Al Sharpton, who among things is an anti-Semite. How does having extremists on a show help advance the dialog?

Howard Portnoy on October 7, 2009 at 8:43 AM

By that reasoning, FOX should also have David Duke as a regular commentator. Having radicals of either stripe is offensive. Although I don’t watch O’Reilly regularly, partly because I can’t stomach O’Reilly any more, one frequest guest I used to see was the ultimate race huckster Al Sharpton, who among things is an anti-Semite. How does having extremists on a show help advance the dialog?

“Offensive” and “Extremist” are two very subjective words. People’s opinions of the two often vary greatly.

I think it would be great if Fox picked the most insane, radical lefties it could find to be contributers; it makes liberals look bad.

Bill Scrunty on October 7, 2009 at 8:55 AM

I’m voting present.

Part of me sides with Bill and Daggett – let these fools expose themselves and embarrass the rest of the liberal sect through their idiocy – and part with you Howard – the presence of people like this does nothing to further any understanding between the two sides (not that there’s much danger of that happening, anyway).

Great catch about Hill being the ghost-writer. Why? O’Reilly’s just gonna have to re-write the whole thing.

Track-A-'Crat on October 7, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Marc Lamont Hill should always be on these shows, it highlights his ignorance and stupidity and the radicalism that is now being taught at the university’s

grapeknutz on October 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM

Seriously? Wow.

BadgerHawk on October 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM

He is testing some of the things right now – remember he wrote O could be role-model for school children. Then yesterday he started to spun O’s re-distribution as some sort of “humanitarian”. Just watch him closely, O is insulated from everything.

Anita on October 7, 2009 at 9:22 AM

Personally, I think he’s just a populist. If people are mad about gas prices, he attacks the oil companies. If they’re mad about sex offenders getting off too easy, he’ll talk about that.
Bill Scrunty

Exactly my feelings. He also has an annoying paternalistic/superiority streak. His “I’m looking out for you” (read: all you little people) shtick is very irritating.

DamnCat on October 7, 2009 at 9:46 AM

and if he can empirically substantiate them. And I think he’s done that.”

What kind science does a person use that would empirically substantiate another person’s death as being deserved?

This man is sick.

rukiddingme on October 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM

I think it would be great if Fox picked the most insane, radical lefties it could find to be contributers; it makes liberals look bad.

Bill, I hear your point, but I’m just not sure that conservatives need further proof that people on the extreme left have it wrong. Liberals will never see themselves as looking bad.

Howard Portnoy on October 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Bill, I hear your point, but I’m just not sure that conservatives need further proof that people on the extreme left have it wrong. Liberals will never see themselves as looking bad.

Howard Portnoy on October 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Liberals and Conservatives have their side. it’s settled. This isn’t about that, it’s about independents. If you can highlight the lefts extremism to the independents, that’s a good thing. The problem, it that the Left and Right are mirror images of themselves. Same retarded media twits doing the same things just with different words. Any rant a conservative goes on, a liberal can just replace “Barack” with “Rush” and the rant still makes sense and vice versa.

uknowmorethanme on October 7, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Hi Folks,

Longtime reader, new poster.
Why give the lunatics legitimacy by giving them a forum. All they do is cause trouble.
They ought to be shunned, not indulged.

VBMax on October 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM

O’Reilly is a douche. His true colors have shown.

And to hear O’Reilly talk about his friends who died on 9/11 while having this despicable jerk on his show. What a disgrace.

cubachi on October 7, 2009 at 12:56 PM

The fact that Mr. Boycott would even associate with a man that thinks an argument could be made that the 9/11 victims deserved it, much less an “empirically substantial” one, is shocking enough but the fact that the guy’s ghostwriting his book?!

I mean, is this an elaborate prank?

CreatedOrSaved on October 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM

I really don’t mind that Dr. Hill is a frequent guest on The O’Reilly Factor. I all most always disagree with his assessment(s) of issues. But it is useful to hear/learn the lefts’ justification for their agenda(s). By knowing what their talking points may be, we can be better prepared to debunk them.

RealityCheck4 on October 7, 2009 at 1:52 PM

This is LGF logic and we know how that turns out. Sure, lambaste Hill, but don’t try to pin his views on O’Reilly.

zmdavid on October 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM

eh, I quit watching O’Reilly a few years ago once he started to inch off the cliff. Although he makes a good point now and then, his guests really drive me up the wall. I’m not saying he should silence them, I just can’t take the back and forth…which I why I now listen to Levin for analysis

d-mitch on October 7, 2009 at 9:43 PM

How does having extremists on a show help advance the dialog?
Howard Portnoy on October 7, 2009 at 8:43 AM

By that reasoning, FOX should also have David Duke as a regular commentator.
Howard Portnoy on October 7, 2009 at 8:43 AM

I am from LA, Duke grew up just a few miles from where I live. I disagree with him. BUT when he was in the LA legistature, he re-submitted all the bills that were left leaning, changing just a single word or two to be right leaning. He caused the legislation to be in the center.
An example: LA had a law that paid for african-american students to go to college. He submitted the same law saying “whites students.” Everyone first said “how racist” until they realized, oops, that means our law is too. The result is something we now call TOPS that is for ALL Lousiana students to go to college.

My point and I think, O’s point, is if you show the extreme, then compromise can be more in the middle. If you show one extreme and then moderates then the compromise is closer to the extreme.

barnone on October 8, 2009 at 2:32 PM