Repetitive Bob

Bob talked about embryonic stem cell research again today. It was the same old repetitive nonsense: embryonic stem cell research is bad, adult stem cells are good, liberals only want to fund embryonic stem cell research because they worship at the alter of Roe v. Wade and want to devalue "life," blah blah blah.

I will kindly note that I've covered this issue before. Nothing has changed. Human embryos are thrown away every single day as a result of in vitro (IV) fertilization procedures that help couples have children. Instead of throwing these embryos in the trash can, scientists would like to conduct research to see if stem cells derived from these embryos can be used to cure diseases and save lives. Either way, the embryo will be thrown away. The only difference is whether a life can be saved in the process. Bob's position says "NO, don't attempt to cure disease using these stem cells, just throw them away."

The Economy

Last Tuesday, Bob took some time to defend the Republican's stewardship of the economy. Bob's defense basically consisted of citing that nationwide unemployment is currently at around 4%. You see, everything is great! Almost everyone who wants a job has one! Bush is doing a helluva job!

But once again, Bob omits the bad news when delivering the good news to tell only one side of the story. It's called "spin" in the political world, but it more accurately called a "lie."

One of the key economic factors that Bob chose to ignore were real wages, which are wages that have been adjusted for inflation. By looking at real wages, you're examining the spending power of an earner, with gas prices, health insurance, and other inflationary pressures already factored in. Unfortunately for Bob's analysis, the fact of the matter is that real wages have been essentially stagnant during the course of the Bush presidency. Despite recent gains, the average real wage in May 2007 was the same as in September of 2002. This is, of course, in contrast to the dramatic rise in real wages during the last years of the Clinton Administration.

So, Bob, this is why people aren't all jolly and happy about the current economy. They're not really making any more money! They're not getting ahead and they don't need me or you to tell them as much. They realize it every week when their paycheck is quickly eaten up by gas, food, and mortgage payments, with precious little to save for the future.

But don't just take my word for it. Even the far right-wing Washington Times isn't impressed by the economy's performance, or the White House's spin, either.

...One Nation Indivisible...

Today, William Murray was on the show to pimp his book, The Pledge: One Nation Under God, to Bob's listeners. They talked about how the outrage of courts ruling that impressionable children going to public schools shouldn't be forced to state a belief in God while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

But neither of them will discuss the actual history of the pledge. Specifically, that the phrase "under God" wasn't added to the pledge until 1954, over 52 years after it was originally created.
This is yet another omission from Bob, who routinely gloats that he is presenting all of the facts.

The original pledge was incredibly inclusive and served to patriotically unite Americans together. The revised pledge, adopted during the Second Red Scare and McCarthyism, negates the word "indivisible" and serves to divide Americans along religious lines.

Lying by Omission

On Wednesday's show, Bob "reported" on an issue out of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. To hear Bob talk about it, you got the impression that: (1) there was a serious problem with gays having sex in Fort Lauderdale's public bathrooms, so (2) the mayor of that city (Jim Naugle) came up with a novel solution to install "robotic toilets" with doors that automatically opened after a certain period of time, and (3) gay activists were raging mad about this plan. Bob then went on to criticize the gay activists, arguing that they should actually be pleased about the mayor attempting to root out the bad apples in the gay community.

But, of course, there's a big problem with Bob's reporting of the story. Bob omitted a key fact. According to the Fort Lauderdale police, "there's no evidence, no reports or arrests made for any men having sex in any restrooms."

So basically, Mayor Naugle was simply taking an opportunity to smear and demonize gay members of the community and accuse them of committing illegal acts, which aren't even happening.

I think I can understand why members of the gay community would be upset! They're not upset at the plan to put in the toilet, but at the allegation that they're a bunch of lawbreakers!

Try thinking about this from a different point of view by imagining the following hypothetical. There's a city with an abortion clinic. A group of Christian activists gather outside the clinic every day. The Christians are generally peaceful, law-abiding members of the community who merely pray and exercise their First Amendment rights. Now imagine that the mayor of that city tells reporters that the city needs to install cameras outside the clinic because the Christians have been acting illegally by committing acts of vandalism, trespassing, and even violence (all of which are untrue). Wouldn't the Christian community be upset? Wouldn't they ask the mayor to apologize for his or her statements? Wouldn't the Christians behave in exactly the way that Bob is criticizing the gay activists for behaving?

The lie of omission is still a lie and not to mention a violation of God's Commandment against bearing false witness. Bob does this all the time. Every time you hear him tell a story about people he doesn't like (gays, Democrats, atheists, etc.) acting in outrageous ways, take a moment and think, "what else may Bob not be telling me?" A simple search on Google (Bob's favorite search engine) may provide the answers.

By the way, did I mention that the robotic toilet is going to cost a quarter of a million dollars? There's fiscal conservatism for you!

Bob doesn't understand the Constitution

Today, Bob said he was "shocked" that 62% of Americans think that Congress should decide when the Iraq war ends and not the President. Bob apparently wants endless war in Iraq until George W. Bush says its OK for us to leave.

I'm shocked, too. But I'm shocked that it's not 100%. After all, the Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, and accordingly, end a war. The President's job, as commander in chief, is to only prosecute the war.

The Constitution is the supreme law of our country. It wisely separates the powers between the branches of government. Bob should try reading it.

Bob Takes Time To Bash His Own Fans

Wow, Bob's ego must've been bruised today!

Bob received a letter from a fan that disagreed with his stance on in-vitro fertilization. She accused him of having a lack of faith that God "would keep the frozen embryos alive." She said that she used in-vitro fertilization and it caused her to produce twins. She also said she kept her other eggs frozen in case she wants to get pregnant again.

Bob replied to the woman via email, and could have left it at that, requires by Matthew 18:15.

But no. Bob decided to let his ego lead him. He read his reply on the air and didn't give the woman a chance to respond. He basically said "I have a lack of faith? No, YOU have a lack of faith!"

Nice, Bob. Not only have you in fact, sinned by going against the teachings of Christ, you alienated one of your fans.

Funny, though, that Bob never confronts us on the blog, despite the fact that we've accused him of being a psuedo-Christian for almost a year now.

And no, Bob, bashing a woman on the radio does not count as "having two or three witnesses."

Bob Complains About Hindu Prayer, Distorts Facts (Again)

Yesterday on Bob’s show he brought up the prayer from a Hindu Chaplain that opened up the Senate. This was the first time in US history that the Senate opened with a Hindu prayer.

I’ll admit that I’m curious as to why the decision was made to bring him in, as to the best of my knowledge there are no Hindu’s in the Senate. But I digress.

Of course Bob complained about it, cried about how it’s an assault on our Christian heritage, and blamed it all on Senator Harry Reid. Bob was quick to make a point that Reid and Senator Inhofe, a Republican were the only ones to show up. Bob was even quicker in dismissing Inhofe’s decision to be there, saying it was only because Inhofe wanted to talk about The Fairness Doctrine.

Bob then mentioned that three Christian protesters were thrown out by security.

What Bob didn’t mention was that it was Senator Inhofe calling for them to be thrown out. Not only that, but it was he who introduced the Chaplain.

Why didn’t Bob mention this? Isn’t it obvious? Bob wants all Christians to falsely believe that Democrats and liberals are out to get them. Mentioning that it was a Republican that had them thrown out would turn the world of his listeners (or at least the ones who take him seriously) upside down. Bob’s entire show is dedicated to getting Christians to vote Republican and support conservative ideas-no matter how much they are in opposition to the teachings of Christ.

Bob again has Terrorist Sympathizer on show

Bob again had terrorist sympathizer/enabler Troy Newman of Operation Rescue on the show today. As mentioned before, Newman employs Cheryl Sullenger, a felon convicted of conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic (an act of terrorism), who has herself appeared on Bob's show.

Newman has also voiced support for now-executed terrorist Paul Hill. In a 2003 interview prior to Hill's execution, Troy stated that Hill was "little more than a political prisoner." Therefore, Newman must believe that Hill did nothing wrong when he murdered John Britton and James Barrett outside a Florida abortion clinic.

Bob's choice of repeat guests reflects (negatively) on his credibility and his beliefs. Why does Bob continue to bring Newman and other representatives of Operation Rescue on his show? I truly hope, for Bob's sake, that he doesn't actually support murder of abortion providers.

An Open Letter to Bob Dutko

Well, Bob, you've hit a new low. You spent the first 40 minutes of your "News Hour" justifying the Current Occupant's decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby.

Bob, are you so fatuous as to think that the Current Occupant's decision is somehow just?

Silly me, asking rhetorical questions. Of course you are.

Your two lines of defense are so very intellectually dishonest (if I may borrow your favorite phrase?) that you come off as a partisan hack. Not that this is surprising.

First you claim that there was no underlying crime. You whine that it was Richard Armitage that leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent, and since Armitage wasn't charge with a crime, Libby shouldn't be.

But Bob, don't you understand that Libby wasn't charged with outing Valerie Plame? He was charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.

He was charged with lying, Bob. Just like Bill Clinton was. Have you changed your mind about the Clinton impeachment? Or is the only time lying is acceptable is when conservatives do it?

What about your second justification? You know the one, where you compare the Current Occupant's actions against Bill Clinton's? You listed all the people that Clinton pardoned and said that Bush was justified because "Clinton did it!"

Exactly what does Bill Clinton have to do with it anyway? Does God let sinners into heaven because they are less of a sinner than, say, Larry Flynt?

Of course not. We are judged on our own actions, not the actions of others. So the act of the Current Occupant is his and his alone.

And what about the CO's actions? Does he believe that the system was broken when it comes to Scooter? Salon dot com reports that Bush has denied more than 4,000 commutation requests. Does this mean the Scooter Libby trial is the single instance where the the system failed us? Even though the judge that heard the case and the special prosecutor are both Bush appointees?

Bob, are you implying that the people whom Bush appointed are so incompetent that they created a massive travesty of justice? And if his appointees are incompetent, what does is say about Bush?

Well, Bobbo, you can see that I have many questions. Maybe you can drop me a line and enlighten me. While you're at it maybe you can explain to me how lying makes a person a good conservative.

After all, Bob, you should know. You lie about so many things on a daily basis. You just wrap your lies in the the Blood of Christ to make them sound good.

Breathlessly awaiting your reply,

Irl