Predictable: Libs Sneer at Phil Robertson’s ISIL Views

September 3rd, 2014 1:59 PM

Although Phil Robertson had already dodged a bullet Tuesday morning by giving a clever answer to ABC reporter Ryan Owens, who asked Phil Robertson if “he was a homophobe,” Robertson still wasn’t out of hot water. The famous patriarch of A&E’s “Duck Dynasty” and outspoken Christian conservative is a frequent media target. Predictably, media lefties made it clear who they think the real enemy is. 

As news broke earlier in the day that a second American journalist had been beheaded by ISIL, Hannity asked Robertson what America’s options were for dealing with the terrorists. Robinson replied, “In this case, you either have to convert them,” Robertson paused. “Which I think would be next to impossible.” He explained, “I’m not giving up on them, but I’m just saying, either convert them or kill them. One or the other. Maybe that time has come and gone. So I think with this ideology ... we have to deal with this group way more harshly than we have up to this point.” He went on to make it clear he would “rather preach the Gospel of Jesus to them, but would be “prepared” to kill if they were looking for a fight.

Watch the rest of his comments below:

Of course the media had a field day with Robertson’s bold words that were a little too reminiscent of the Islamic terrorists “convert or die” mandate. Taken in its entirety, however, Robertson’s comments are not as inflammatory or harsh as the media made them out to be.

That didn’t stop The Washington PostUSA TodayTIME, Politico, Huffington PostSalon and other liberal media from using the headline Phil Robertson solution to ISIS: “‘Convert or Kill’” while not mentioning the rest of Robertson’s comments. Several media outlets such as The Huffington Post and Washington Post made sure to compare Robertson’s statements to religious extremists by saying “ISIS militants have carried out forced conversions of their own.”

Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski also made the comparison by sarcastically tweeting, “Religious fanatic with long beard says people must convert or be killed. No not ISIS.”



Gawker similarly tweeted, “Phil Robertson’s plan to fight ISIS is to be more like ISIS.”

Salon’s Elias Isquith predictably had lots of kind words for Robertson. Described as “a full-fledged recipient of wingnut welfare” and a “phony woodsman” Isquith tore into Robertson for his “hateful” and “racist” comments” towards LGBT people, blacks, and … the Islamic State?  Apparently, Isquith took issue with Robertson describing ISIL as “street gangs” and “street thugs on steroids.” Because blood-thirsty terrorists are people Americans should describe sympathetically, it seems.

The Washington Post’s Abby Ohlheiser mocks Hannity for (correctly) mentioning that the media would make a big deal about Robertson’s comments “for some reason.” Ohlheiser made sure to remind readers that Robertson was a Christian by referencing his Bible sitting on Hannity’s desk in the first line, as a nice setup for the sarcastic article.

USA Today’s Ann Oldenburg continued with the sarcasm, writing, “You knew Duck Dynastypatriarch Phil Robertson, who says he never goes anywhere without his Bible or his "woman" (wife "Miss Kay"), would bring a fresh perspective to the terrible ISIS situation.”

As the record has shown, the media doesn’t treat all controversial comments alike. While Phil Robertson’s outspoken Christian views draw the attention of the media, the networks refuse to give the same critical analysis to liberals like Rosie O’Donnell, who is a 9/11 truther, or to Jenny McCarthy, whose dangerous anti-vaccination activism has helped spur outbreaks of infectious diseases in the U.S., long eradicated before she put her celebrity face to an unscientific fad.