As are many of Fox News talkers, Sean Hannity is an avowed conservative Catholic. So perhaps he was channeling his inner Torquemada when, last Thursday, he defended the noted theologian and Ducky Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson's "biblical" belief that ISIS should be offered the choice between converting to Christianity or die. Hannity's impassioned support for Robertson, whose words were supposedly "taken out of context," came on the heels of MSNBC's Ed Schultz's skewering of Hannity's hypocrisy in defending the very thing that we are condemning ISIS for doing. So not only did Hannity stand up for his bayou soul brotha; but he engaged in a very Christian ad-hominem attack on Schultz. But Hannity and Robertson are devout pro-life Christian, so it's all good.... As international affairs analysts, not so much!
Thursday night's segment began with video of Schultz's statement about the absurdity of Robertson's "taking a page" out of the ISIS playbook because "that's exactly what ISIS is doing." Schultz asked about how many Christian preachers would back up Robertson. That, of course, is spot-on; but Hannity's immediate reaction was to call Schultz a "left wing lunatic" who (ahhhh) "went after Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson." He introduced his panel, fellow conservative Catholic Brian Kilmeade, uber Catholic, Knight of Malta, and Roger Ailes personal attorney Peter Johnson Jr, and liberal contributor Tamara Holder.
Hannity began by totally missing the point: "I don't know of any Christian leader or any Christian group that's out beheading, demanding convert or die in the sense that Phil Robertson was saying if you kill innocent men, women, or children, if you slaughter American journalists, if you say to people you will convert or die. There's a very different perspective here. And that is obviously too hard for an MSNBC host to understand."
Different perspective? Really? Here's what Roberson said: "In this case, you either have to convert them which I think would be next to impossible. I'm not giving up on them but I'm just saying either convert them or kill them, one or the other. I think converting them, maybe has that time come and gone, so I think that with this ideology we're faced with, this is like street gangs, street thugs on steroids."
Holder said that the problem was that Hannity "chose a backwoods guy" with no background. (Hannity interjected "Schultz") Hannity defended his pal as "a strong Christian" and "put it another way:" "Either they change their hearts or they should die for what they are doing to innocent women and children." (Put another way - defense of "convert or die.") He followed this with "Christians are not doing this." (But Robertson wants them to!)
A stuttering Johnson said "absolutely not" and noted the Kilmeade is a pal of Robertson's. Kilmeade defended Robertson as "no backwoods guy" and "brilliant." Johnson continued his weasel: "We don't have to defend what he says all the time; but on this, I think he's kinda right on in terms of these folks wanting to kill all the time." (Hey, Pete, it doesn't take a "brilliant" thinker, like Robertson, to know that!)
Hannity who, as far as I know, wasn't all that concerned about recent, past atrocities to children in West African conflicts, described ISIS' atrocities. To Holder's question of whether Robertson wants to proselytize, Hannity Foxplained: "He's saying that they will give up their murderous ideology or they will die." Holder was right when she followed with "that's not what he said."
Kilmeade made the absurd claim that Robertson was "taken totally out of context" when Robertson's comment was said as a response to Hannity's question of how we should deal with ISIS. Kilmeade tried to say that Robertson was only talking about how "extremists" should be given - wait for it - the option to convert or die which is no big deal because "they prefer to die." Hannity wanted to know if there should be a "clear, unambiguous message" to the radicals that if they continued their murderous ways they will die. The rest of the session was spent trashing Obama for not being forceful enough in his messaging.
So no matter how Hannity tries to parse it, he's still defending Phil Robertson's indefensible and batshit crazy commentary about how ISIS should be killed if they don't convert to Christianity. Put another way, Sean Hannity wants us to treat ISIS the way they treat others. Real Christian, right?
Hannocchio could have gone after President Obama for his association with Saudi Arabia, a country well-known for its Isis-style executions. Odd, he is mum on this topic. Why?
Here is your answer:
Saudi Arabia Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal’s deep ties to News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch, and Fox “News” Channel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/prince-alwaleed-bin-talal/
Saudi Arabia continues beheadings
“This week, Private Eye reported that in the 21 months between James Foley’s capture in November 2012, and his subsequent beheading by ISIS militants on August 19, 2014, Saudi Arabia beheaded 113 people.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1458897/as-far-as-beheadings-go-saudi-arabia-appears-to-be-competing-with-the-isis-why-is-u-s-turning-a-blind-eye/#WdO71wj5YFQ1ixzR.99
Surely, Hannocchio would be outraged on these senseless beheadings, but he is forbidden to bring up the topic. You are not allowed to criticized News Corporation shareholders, even if they come from a country that beheads people almost daily.
Saudi Arabia beheading nearly two people per week this year
“This case has thrown the country’s flawed justice system into especially sharp relief, highlighting the serious lack of transparency, patently unfair trials, and fatal results,” said Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/saudi-arabia-beheading-nearly-two-people-per-week-this-year
We encourage all the masses to call every radio talk show in America, and post in all social media about the brutal beheadings of people in Saudi Arabia, and why hosts like Hannocchio and the rest of Fox “News” stay silent on the matter.
As Mark Braun said, if you take the time to look with an open mind, there are plenty of examples of christian terrorism. Here is the US, we just don’t get that kind of news. And, yes, I do believe that the christians are every bit as dangerous and murderous as the muslims. Every time some poor woman is allowed to die because a life-saving medical abortion is against ‘christian’ beliefs, the christians are guilty of an execution as heinous as any muslim execution. Murder in the name of jesus is just as disgustingly wrong as murder in the name of allah.
The point is not that I’m a fan of Phil Robertson. The point is that many on the left seem to think that right wing Christians are just as bad as Muslim terrorists, and it just ain’t true.
There’s a big difference between somebody’s opinion (“convert or die”) and what ISIS is doing.
Don’t forget the fine, upstanding christian organization known as the KKK.
Oh, and Hitler…..who believed he was doing God’s work.
If you can’t find them, you ain’t looking very hard.
Does that sentence actually make any sense?
That’s only one example of Christian terrorism….there’s plenty more out there.
Fuck these people.
