Nobody is Afraid of the Big Bad Bobbo!

Bobbo likes to play up the idea that his beliefs are supported with common sense.  He pretends that he is so full of sound, practical judgment that formal training or expertise isn't necessary.  Have a listen:

 

Bobbo makes three major points in his invective.

First, he thinks that evolutionary scientists are "afraid" to let creationists present their bullshit.  I've covered this issue before, so there's no need to address it again.
 
Second, Bob believes that evolution is "unproven."  But here's an important question that Bobbo is never asked, nor will he respond to:  What evidence would Bobbo accept that demonstrates the evolution is scientific fact?

• Would Bobbo accept the results of an experiment which forced E. coli bacteria to adapt or perish showed that, in a pinch, they were capable of improvising a novel molecular tool to save their skins? 

• Would Bobbo accept observations of an adaptation that allowed tropical blue moon butterfly to develop a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria? 

• Would Bobbo accept the observation of the London Underground Mosquito, which evolved from a different type of mosquito to become a distinct species?

Bobbo won't answer these questions, so I'll answer them for him:  No, no and no.  Realistically, Bobbo will never accept any evidence that demonstrates the veracity of evolution.  He doesn't approach the subject scientifically by examining hard data, he approaches it the way a four year old approaches eating his vegetables:  He screams, throws himself on the ground and cries until someone listens.  Bobbo has made up his mind, so he's lying if he pretends to be impartial on the subject.

As for Bobbo's third point, that Creationists have "mountains" of "scientific" evidence, but it's "censored" by evolutionary scientists, I challenge him to produce one scientifically verifiable observation in support of the Biblical account of creation.  This observation must be on par with the three I've cited above, observable and falsifiable through the scientific method.  Hint:  Bobbo won't do it, because he can't do it.

Finally, Bobbo thinks that because actual scientists don't want to deal with superstitious buffoons that they are hiding from a fight, and "common sense" demonstrates the weakness in evolution.

Hardly.  Scientists aren't "censoring" anything.  They are just unwilling to humor superstitious buffoons who refuse to deal in hard evidence.

Finally, Bobbo's appeal to "common sense" is specious.  Bobbo's idea of common sense is just his collection ignorance and prejudice.  Honestly, Bobbo's appeals to "common sense" is an admission that his tiny, flaccid arguments lack the fecundity to educate all but the most ignorant of minds.

In other words, Bobbo is an insufferable dolt.

Bob Needs Democracy Training

Bob is constantly blathering that the Founding Fathers created the government to promote Christianity.  Take a listen:



So, according to Bob, Jefferson "needed biblical training," yet still wanted to promote Christianity.

This is the same Thomas Jefferson, who, in his Notes on Virginia, wrote, "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

So Jefferson, who was hostile to Christianity, wanted to "blend" the Church and State?  Does Bob believe his own bullshit?

If the Founding Fathers wanted to "blend" Church and State, why didn't they say so?  Why didn't the Founding Fathers simply compose the First Amendment to read "While Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a national church, Congress shall make law promoting the Christian religion?"

The answer is obvious:  The Founding Fathers believed that the authority of government is not found in religious belief, but rather, in the consent of the governed.  A person's beliefs are irrelevant to governmental authority, as long that person is committed to democratic ideals.

Furthermore, Bob has never provided any evidence that the Bible contains democratic ideals.  According to the Bible, God's approved form of Government is a divine monarchy, where God anoints a king and the people must submit.  If anything, the Bible is anti-democratic!

Ask yourself:  In which Gospel does the word "democracy" appear?  What Biblical passage expounds on a tripartite government, consisting of executive, legislative and judicial branches?  In which parable does Jesus explain that good government results from the consent of the governed?

Bob will never answer these questions.  No, Bobby will only offer twisted history and pseudo-evidence in an attempt to achieve his true goal:  A Government that requires its citizens to submit to the Dutko Approved!™ form of Christianity.

What a dick.

Bob Dutko: Whoring for Republicans!

Bob needs to convince you that he's taking a principled stand on every issue. When an issue arises, Bob has parsed every argument, thoroughly researched and applied the most rigorous logic. So when Bob attacks the patriotism of a fellow American, you can be assured that this fellow American has done something so vile as to warrant massive opprobrium.

So here is Bob questioning the patriotism of liberal pundit Ed Schultz:



According to Bob, it is perfectly acceptable to question the patriotism of an American citizen because they don't like the Lee Greenwood song "God Bless the USA."

Bob has offered no evidence or argument on which he can accuse Schultz of be unpatriotic!

This is typical Dutko whore-mongering for Republicans. And if you read your Bible, Bob's slandering of liberals contradicts the Word of God.

In Paul's letter to Titus (3:1-2), Paul instructed Titus to "Remind [Christians] to be under the control of magistrates and authorities, to be obedient, to be open to every good enterprise. They are to slander no one, to be peaceable, considerate, exercising all graciousness toward everyone."

Further, in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, Paul commands that "supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. This is good and pleasing..."

Clearly, Bob by slandering Ed Schultz, Bob has disobeyed God's Word. But ask yourself: Have you every heard Dutko offer prayers for President Obama? Has Dutko ever offered any prayers for any Democrat? Of course not.

Dutko is playing a political game, continuously attacking "liberals" and questioning their patriotism in order to get Republicans elected. These personal attacks stem from Bob's belief that Republicans are better aligned with God and only they should lead this nation. But realize, for Bob to attack liberals the way he does, he must disobey God.

Ultimately for Bob, political goals trump God's will. Bob is a Christian in the way Dr. Pepper is a doctor: It's all marketing, designed to sell you something. Just know that Dutko's show is as nutritious for you mind as sugar water is for your body.

Bob Loves Guns! Just like Jesus!

Bob makes it clear that his political positions are informed by the Bible. If Jesus taught something, it is paramount that those teachings be incorporated into the politics of today's world.

Among Jesus' teachings, you'll find various statements about peace. In Luke 6:27-32 Jesus taught

But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.

The Gospel of Matthew is even more explicit. In Matthew 5:9, Jesus taught "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."

Because Bob is such a good Christian, you would expect him to take every opportunity to promote peace as the correct political view.

However, when Bob was asked about people openly carrying guns at the Art, Beats and Eats festival, Bob said:



Let's review: For the Children of God to be peacemakers, Jesus taught his followers to be willing to turn the other cheek and give away more than what is taken from them. Bob, on the other hand, is comforted in knowing that some people are willing to carry guns and shoot "bad guys."

Beyond the fact that Bob is ignoring Jesus' explicit teaching, Bob is making several revealing assumptions. First, Bob assumes that there are people around him that are "bad" and carrying guns. Second, Bob assumes that the "good" guy carrying the gun has the noble intentions of protecting Bob and his family. Finally, Bob assumes that the police and local government (made up of We the People) are unwilling or incapable of protecting him at a public event.

In summary, Bob has no faith that God or the Government can or will protect him, making guns in public absolutely necessary. Bob also distrusts absolute strangers.

Need I remind you that Bob prostitutes the Bible to make a buck?

Bob's Endorsements are Worthless

There is one underlying thing I want you to take away from this blog: The fact that Bob Dutko is making a living by selling you lies. Not just lies about science and history, but lies about the goods and services he sell.

This is Bob doing an endorsement for the law firm of Goodwin and Scieszka:



Among the areas of practice that the Goodwin firm specializes in is medical malpractice.

So you'd think that when Bob has a cause of action in this area of law, he'd rely on the fine attorneys of Goodwin & Scieszka, right?

Wrong.

Sadly, Bob's daughter Colleen passed away in Bob's arms, apparently of an inherited heart defect. Rather than accept that Colleen's heart anomaly was the work of a loving God, Bob sued his daughter's doctor for medical malpractice. Bob retained not one, but two law firms to prosecute his claim. Strangely, neither firm was Goodwin & Scieszka.

The first firm was Zausmer, Kaufman, August Caldwell & Tayler, P.C. They worked on the case until they requested to withdraw in March of 2007.

After the withdrawal was granted, Bob retained a second firm, Sommers & Schwartz P.C. Sommers & Schwartz were the attorneys of record until they were granted a withdrawal in July of 2007.

At no point did Bob retain the firm of Goodwin & Scieszka to pursue his claims, despite the fact that they advertise on his show and medical malpractice is an area of law they specialize in.

Don't believe me? Go to the Macomb County Court Explorer, search for the name "Robert Dutko" and read the docket entries.

Thus, an underlying question arises: Why would Bob Dukto endorse a law firm that he refused to use when he sued someone?

I offer an answer: Bob doesn't need to believe his own endorsements, he just needs you to believe his endorsements. Bob's endorsements exist for the sole purpose of providing a profit to Crawford Broadcasting, based on the ratings that Bob generates. At no point does this guarantee that Bob must be sincere in his endorsements.

What do we call someone whose actions don't match his claims? Hypocrite.

Bob Trivializes Violence Against Abortion Providers

Bob went on the offensive at the beginning of his Monday (6/1) discussion of the heinous murder of Dr. George Tiller. Specifically, Bob trivialized the violence against abortion providers as some sort of fringe problem. Dutko said:

I am not going to just sit back and let pro-life voices be weakened, or silenced, or intimidated into silence, by some sort of false association with these nut-case murderers. There have been, since Roe v. Wade, over 30 years ago, there have been now four, a total of four abortion doctors killed. ... But the bottom line it's only four.

"It's only four." How sickening. Ask the families and friends of Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, Dr. Barnett Slepian, and Dr. George Tiller if they would agree that these people are "only four."

But Bob's "it's only four" figure is ridiculously deceptive. First, Bob has conveniently chosen to omit the non-physician murders attributable to "pro-life" violence. These include James Barrett, a clinic escort, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, who were clinic receptionists, and Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard. So now, we're up to eight deaths.

Still not a big enough number for Bob? Well, let's add in the 17 attempted murders since 1977. Now we're up to 21 acts of violence by "pro-life" forces. Still not enough violence for Bob? Let's add in the 41 instances of bombing, 175 instances of arson, and 96 instances of attempted bombing/arson. Now we're up to 333 acts of violence. I could go on like this all day, but when you add in all the other categories of violent crimes, you get a grand total of at least 6,143 acts of violence since Roe v. Wade was decided.

6,143 acts of violence by vs. "it's only four." That's more than a few "nut-jobs" like Bob suggests. If Bob can't see the association between the "pro-life" community and these acts of violence, then there truly is no hope for him.

Kansas City Terrorism-It Gets Even Worse

We’ve been harping on Bob for years to stop giving air time to terrorists like Cheryl Sullenger and the rest of Operation Rescue for years now.

Turns out that Scott Roeder has a strong relationship with Cheryl Sullenger. When he was arrested, her phone number was found in his car.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that there was likely involvement on the part of Operation Rescue in the terrorist attack against Dr. Tiller. Operation Rescue supplied all the personal information needed to carry out the job. The only thing they didn't supply was a guy with a gun.

These are the people that Bob invites onto his show.

Even more on Dr. Tiller

Bob,

Dr. George Tiller was assassinated today.

I'm sure you already know that, having watched the news. And make no mistake, he was assassinated. Tiller was a high profile person, specifically targeted because of who he was and what he did for a living.

The person responsible hasn't been identified yet, but would you care to guess the religion of the assassin? Do you think he was a Muslim? Maybe an atheist?

Of course not. He was a Christian.

I can already hear your bleatings: The assassin wasn't a Christian because "true" Christians don't kill people. "True" Christians are the ones legally protesting and "protecting" the fetuses. "True" Christians should be shocked and appalled that someone would kill in Christ's name.

But your all your whining is meaningless, Bob. The reason is simple: Because every single day, you advocate violence. You support the torture of people suspected of being terrorists. You support the going to war on people that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. You support the death penalty. So let's be honest, Bob. You're satisfied with Tiller's assassination, aren't you?

You're satisfied with Tiller's assassination because you are well practiced in the fine art of moral equivocation. You don't believe that the Bush administration advocated torture because you define torture as anything but what the Bush administration did. You don't mind the death of innocent civilians in Iraq because, honestly, no Muslim is innocent, right? And Tiller's assassination is acceptable because he's killed so many "babies."

And I'm not just speculating here, Bob. You've invited violent people to be guests on you show. As DJ pointed out, you've given airtime to Cheryl Sullenger, a woman convicted of conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic. You've had Randall Terry on your show, who, in reacting to Tiller's assassination, said "George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that...He was an evil man - his hands were covered with blood." I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find others.

So I'm asking you to be intellectually honest, Bob. I want you to plainly state what you really think: Tiller's assassination was justified, and that thousands of lives will be saved by the killing of this doctor.

I do have a few of lingering questions, though. If you take the position that Tiller's death was unjustified, immoral, anti-Christian and illegal, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to denounce Sullenger and her ilk for their violent past? Are you going to advocate for the cessation of all violence as anti-Christian? Or will you do nothing, as I expect you to?

By the way, did you know that Kansas reinstated the death penalty in 1994? When the assassin is caught and sentenced to death, will you support the conviction and sentence?

Should Tiller's assassination be compounded by another death?

How much death are you willing to settle for, in order to bring about the Christian nation you long for?

Irl

Bob Dutko: Defending the Untruth

If you routinely listen to Bob Dutko, you know that he claims that his beliefs are backed up by "science, logical, and intellectual reasoning." This is the phrase he uses when promoting his syndicated show Defending the Truth. However, Bob's recent statements regarding immunizations and autism show that what he really is doing is defending lies.

On Friday, Bob discussed the recent court ruling confirming that there is no link between immunizations and autism. Curiously, Bob admitted that there is no scientific evidence to support his claims that immunizations cause autism. However, he said that he can't ignore the anecdotal evidence!

I nearly fell off my chair at this point. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence! It is the opposite of scientific evidence and a logical fallacy!

Bob went on to quote a "paper" by a psychologist named Bernard Rimland. Dr. Rimland, now deceased, was the parent of an autistic child. The "paper" that Bob quoted made some fantastic claims, such as "thousands of parents report with their home videos" that their children have autism after getting a vaccine.

As I noted in a previous post, there have been many scientific studies performed to show that there is no causal link between receiving immunizations and developing autism. One of those studies looked at the health records of 537,303 Danish children. When comparing the vaccinated children to unvaccinated children, researchers found no correlation between vaccination and the development of an autistic disorder.

Whose word am I to trust on this matter? A dead man, whose own child has autism, who claims to have viewed thousands of videotapes from other distraught parents or the comprehensive study of over the medical records of a half million children?

I'm gonna go with the latter. Why won't Bob rely on actual evidence?

Bob Lies About the Stimulus

Today, Bob outright lied regarding the economic stimulus bill, currently pending before Congress. Here's a small portion of his rant. Bob stated that the bill will prevent public colleges and universities from allowing Bible study or "private prayer time" in the dorms, if that institution were to take stimulus money for building renovation. He even asserted that the ACLU would be able to prohibit "any kind of religious expression going on, even during private time."

What a load of horseshit.

The language in question reads as such:

No funds awarded under this section may be used for ... modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.

That language says nothing about prohibiting religious expression in any way, shape, or form! In fact, this language has been standard in federal education spending bills for nearly 50 years. Don't believe me? Here's some excerpts from statutes going back to 1963.

Has this language prevented Bible study in public universities? Has it prevented religious expression during "private time"? Has it prevented religious groups from using university facilities?

OF COURSE NOT.

Campus Crusade for Christ meets in buildings all over the MSU campus. The Muslim Students Association at Wayne State assembles every Thursday in the library. Hillel at Michigan makes ample use of the university's facilities.

This SAME provision has been used in spending bills for decades and doesn't do ANY of the things that Bob says it's going to do.

The truly insane thing is that Bob should be happy about the language of this bill. Since he is opposed to Mormonism, he should be pleased that the University of Utah can't use taxpayer money to build a Mormon Temple. Since Bob thinks Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult, you'd think he'd be tickled pink that the State University of New York can't build a Watchtower learning complex. And since Bob thinks that Muslims are all going to hell, why would he oppose language that keeps Wayne State from building a Mosque on the center of campus?

More Terrorism

To commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, some nutjob decided to drive his SUV into a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota.

When [spokesperson] Di Nicola arrived at the clinic, she said the man had gotten out of the SUV and was pacing around it, holding a crucifix and chanting. "He was agitated and he was saying, 'shut down this Auschwitz,' " she said.

I can't say I'm surprised. Bob Dutko and his ilk are won't stop repeating that "abortion is murder" and that it must be eradicated. If I believed murders were actually occurring in a building, I might try to stop them, too.

However, abortion is not murder, no matter how many times Bob and his ilk say it is. Luckily, no one was hurt in this instance of domestic terrorism.

Bobbo Loves the Torture!

Bobbo,

I imagine you spend a great deal of time in masturbatory glee at your presumed brilliance. But I find you to possess a vile little mind, filled with hatred and paranoia for anything you cannot understand.

First you you commit the intellectual sin of post hoc ergo propter hoc by making the spurious claim that torture has protected us from further terrorist attacks. Then you go on to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantanmo by claming its a great place to be! For good measure, you debase the American justice system by claiming that "slick" defense attorneys "like O.J. Simpson's" would be lining up to free Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

None of this compares the Grand Whopper of Ignorance you laid at the end of your bullshit parade! You all summed it all up by claiming that only Americans have rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

What an amazing mixture of racism and ignorance you are Bob! The abuse you suffered at the hands of your father sure has lasting effects, doesn't it?

I'll try to be as plain as I can so even your feeble mind can understand: By your own admission our rights are granted to us by God. If God granted us our rights, did he grant them to everyone or just believers? If God granted rights to everyone, then the terror SUSPECTS are due the protections of the Constitution, right? Or does your God make exceptions for the scary brown people?

And if God only grants right to believers, then would you advocate the imprisonment and water boarding of atheists? Those mean, nasty atheists have the temerity to not be afraid of your mythical big scary man in the sky, so they deserve what they get, right?

Which is it Bob? Why don't you use you big brain to cut the Gordian knot of this little dilemma?

And while you're at it, why don't you do an in studio demonstration of water boarding? If it's not torture, a big strapping guy like you would have no trouble being water boarded, right? If you're too afraid of the demonstration, why don't you bring in one of your kids to be water boarded? If it's not torture, they won't be harmed, right?

Bobbo, you can redeem yourself by two simple acts: First, host an in studio demonstration that proves water boarding isn't torture, and, second, try practicing the compassion that Christ displayed.

Oh, my mistake, you don't believe Jesus of compassion. You believe in Jesus, Lord of War.

Irl

Bob Lies About Terrorism. Again.

Today, Bob repeated the right wing lie said that Bush was in a lose-lose situation on the Global War On Terror. He started by saying that Bush kept us safe for seven years from terrorist attacks.

Ummmm….not so much.

When you include domestic terrorist attacks, we’ve had well over 100 terrorist attacks since 9/11. This includes the anthrax attacks that occurred just after 9/11, a shooting of a Unitarian church, a shooting spree from a white supremacist, hoax anthrax letters being sent, attacks from the Army of God and others against abortion clinics, and several others. And we always love to remind people of Bob's love for domestic terrorists who praise God for 9/11.

But Bob and other right-wingers like him think that the only terrorist attacks that count came from brown people. There was one of those, too, when in 2002 a man shot up LAX.

Then Bob said that if another terrorist attack did happen on 9/11, we’d be saying Bush didn’t do enough to protect us by taking away our civil liberties. Bob said that if another terrorist attack happened, we’d all be screaming: “You better waterboard the guy!”

Last I checked, waterboarding someone to extract a confession wasn't exactly something Jesus condoned.

If you’re a Christian, that’s not exactly something you want to hear from someone who claims to be “fearlessly defending the faith."

Refutations of Bob

On Friday, Bob criticized a listener who sent him an email for failing to refute any of his so-called "evidence." He then went on to accuse evolutionists of failing to refute him. (Actually, it's just simpler to point and laugh.)

Well, in the past two years, this blog has specifically refuted Bob's statements many, many times. These refutations are not limited to evolution, but science, history, politics, and other topics. I've assembled a partial list of these refutations below.

Therefore, I refute Bob's accusation that evolutionists never refute him.

Science

• Bob's contention that Neanderthal DNA is identical to Humans is easily refuted by the evidence.
• Bob's contention that the Universe is less than 10,000 years old is incorrect based on the scientific evidence provided by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.
• Bob states that radiometric dating shows that every single rock on the entire planet is actually over 100,000 years old. However, Ar-Ar dating accurately places rocks from the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius to about 2000 years ago.
• Bob stated that there was no evidence of what Trilobites evolved from, but there actually is.
• Bob says transitional fossils don't exist, but that claim is easily refuted.
• Bob says that doctors take the Hippocratic oath that bars doctors from participating in abortion. However, doctors don't actually take that oath.
• Bob's false assertions about Lucy are refuted.
• Bob thinks the Earth may be the center of the Universe, but this is shown to be wrong by a real scientist.
• Bob says that the laws of thermodynamics prove God's existence; Irl refutes this supposition.
• Bob says warming on Mars proves that warming on Earth is not caused by human action. An astrophysicst thinks otherwise.
• Bob says Abortion causes breast cancer, but scientific studies say the opposite. Again.
  
• Bob says that carbon dating of dinosaur bones dates them to under 10,000 years old. However, this story has been debunked.
  
• Bob's guest says there's no giraffe or blue whale fossils on record, ignoring the multitude of giraffe and blue whale fossils.
• Bob says "dinosaurs are nothing more than reptiles that continued to go," but real scientists, who study the evidence, say this is incorrect.
• Bob says "the creation of matter and energy violates the first law of thermodynamics." But this is refuted.
• Bob says there was hysteria over global cooling in the 70s, when there really wasn't.
  

Politics

• Bob says Democrats had an "overwhelming majority" in the Senate, when in fact, that majority was by a single vote.
• Bob's freakout about the Fairness Doctrine is refuted by actual facts.
• Bob said that Obama's website had been scrubbed of campaign promises when, in fact, it had not.
• Bob agreed with a caller that Hillary Clinton wasn't vigorously campaigning for Obama; when, in fact, Hillary was all over the place for Barack.
• Bob lies about Obama's voting record in the Illinois State Senate concerning the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act".
• Bob says Obama is the most liberal Senator, but he's not.
• Bob complains that Republicans were treated unfairly in the CNN/YouTube debates, but Democrats got the same treatment.
• Bob complains that "puff piece" written about Hillarly Clinton was proof of media bias. However, these positive articles are written about every major candidate.
• Bob wrong about a tazer incident at a John Kerry speech.
• Bob says voting is a "privilege"; the Constitution says its a "right".
• Bob says Nancy Pelosi is violating the Logan Act by going to Syria, but he is refuted by the facts.
• Bob says Bill Clinton committed perjury when he was actually was found non guilty.
• Bob implies Nancy Pelosi is corrupt for exempting American Samoa from the new minimum wage, but the facts say differently.
  

Law

• Bob is educated on when a legal provision is "constitutional".
• Bob bashed ACORN for turning in likely false voter registration cards and failed to mention that they are required by law to turn in all voter registration cards.
• Bob says that buying a raffle ticket for a car is tax deductible, but it's not.
• Bob says male cops can't frisk female subjects and vice-versa, but he's wrong.
• Bob is educated about fundamental rights, in addition to abortion, that aren't explicitly recited in the Constitution (e.g., freedom to marry, Miranda, etc.)

History

• Bob quotes James Madison as stating "religion is the basis and foundation of government." However, this quote is absolutely false.
  
• Bob omits evidence regarding the desires of the Founding Fathers to have a secular government.
• Bob says "Iraq and the terrorists in Iraq" attacked us on 9/11, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
• Bob thinks the American military was primarily fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, when in fact, they were fighting home grown Sunni militants.
• Bob makes multiple false statements about Margaret Sanger that are easily refuted.
• Bob is wrong about how long it took the U.S. to develop a constitution after independence.
• Bob says deaths are "way down in Iraq," when they weren't.
• Bob believes that the Framers of the Constitution did not want a secular government due to the use of "...in the Year of our Lord..." in the Constitution. However, Bob ignores numerous evidence to the contrary.
• Bob says the Iraq government wants us to say while polling says the opposite.
• Bob says Thomas Jefferson was the first to use the phrase "wall of separation", but that's not true.
• Bob says Thomas Jefferson ordered the Bible to be taught in schools, but the facts don't support this assertion.
• Bob says we didn't have troops in the Middle East in 2001, but we did.
  

Mystere (Edward Endo) is off his medication.

Other

• Bob says Plan B is an abortifacient; it isn't.
• Bob says it's hard to find retailers selling nativity scenes, when in actuallity, they're widely available.
• Bob implies that abortions are the main business at Planned Parenthood, when they're actually only 3% of their business.
• Bob says that the burden is on an atheist to prove God does not exist. This is not logical.
• Bob says feminists are silent about suppression of women in Iran, but it's simply not true.
• Bob says Google won't acknowledge Easter because they're left wing. He ignores Google's acknowledgment of Easter.
• Bob says a biology teacher was fired for mentioning the Bible, when, in fact, he was fired teaching some really crazy stuff.
• Bob says Wikipedia is liberal when they have a neutral point of view policy.
• Bob says "the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the United States are caused by Muslims." But the facts don't back this up.
• Bob says "liberals in this country paint Israel as the bad guys," but this is a straw man argument.
• Bob routinely attacks the ACLU as being "anti-Christian", but ignores all of the pro-Christian causes they defend.
• Bob says women are dying from using RU486, but in actuality, the small number of deaths are probably due to misuse of the drug. Besides Tylenol and Viagra are more dangerous.

Overwhelming Majority

On Monday, Bob stated that the Democrats had an "overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate."

In reality, the Democrats maintain the tiniest of majorities in the U.S. Senate. In the current 110th Congress, prior to to the resignation of Barack Obama, the Democrats had 49 members, the Republicans had 49 members and there were two independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman). The two independents caucus with the Democrats to give them a 51% voting share, just enough to make Harry Reid the majority leader, instead of the minority leader.

Now, 51% doesn't sound like an "overwhelming majority" to me. But I, unlike Bob, have had training in math past the high school level.

Also, keep in mind that because of the Senate's rules regarding debate, you often need a minimum of 60 votes to pass contentious legislation. This rule has made it possible for the Senate Republicans to block numerous pieces of legislation over the last two years, most recently the auto company loan package.

So Bob, please get your facts straight. Otherwise, you sound like a liar.

Bob Reveals his True Nature!

Bobbo,

Not that you realize it, but you revealed yourself today.

It was during your interview with Karl Giberson. You had Dr. Giberson on to discuss his recently published book, Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in Evolution. And it's not so much what you did as much as what you didn't do.

Normally, when you have a guest on to discuss evolution, you have very specific lines of attack. One of your favorites, which I have discussed in the past, is to bring up the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. You'll spew out some long-winded question about either of the laws and then challenge your guest to refute your "logic."

But you didn't do this with Dr. Giberson. And I know why. You see, Bobbo, Dr. Giberson has a PhD in physics from Rice University. Had you attempted to ambush him with your bullshit ideas about physics, Dr. Giberson would have, simply put, kicked your stupid ass up and down the airwaves.

Oh, you put up the facade that you are the last intellectually honest person in the world. You have your conspiracies about academia and how they censor the truth and avoid real debate, all in an effort to deny Christ. But when it comes to you challenging an academic and true expert with your silly-assed notions, you don't have the balls to do so.

So let us be intellectually honest Bob. Why don't you admit to your cowardice and let everyone know exactly what you are.

Irl

Hacking History

Bobbo,

You replayed your interview with that hack David Barton, and I just can't let it pass without commenting.

You see, Barton is not a historian. He's a former science teacher at a fundamentalist high school with no formal training in history. Further, actual historians (people with advanced degrees in history) think very little of Barton's work. One historian described Barton thusly: "He's not a trained historian. He can be very convincing to an uninitiated audience. He's intelligent. He's well-spoken. But a lot of what he presents is a distortion of the truth..."

So Barton is a hack, but he's right up you alley, because you're a typical loud-mouthed, ignorant doofus.

Anyway, I want to take up a couple of your "logical" points.

First, you railed against the attempt to strike down California's Proposition 8 on the basis that it is unconstitutional. You figure that if a provision is in a constitution, then the people have spoken and the provision is constitutional. Wow, what sloppy reasoning! Beyond begging the question, your "argument" would allow for the tyranny of the majority!

If a proposition is Constitutional merely because the proposition is in the Constitution, then a majority of citizens can alter the Constitution in extremely problematic ways. This would allow the majority to run roughshod over the rights of the minority! Think about it this way: If the electorate of Michigan ratified a provision to the Constitution that stated all pregnant women under the age of seventeen must have an abortion, would you agree that the provision is Constitutional merely because it was in the Constitution?

Next, you proposed to test the intent of the Founding Fathers by looking at the actions they took at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. You paraded out your regular list of horribles, all in an effort to support the claim that the Founders somehow supported Christianity. But what about the other actions of the Founders that demonstrate that they were antireligious?

• Why did many of the early State Constitutions have provisions banning Clergy from holding public office? (BTW, the Tennessee Constitution of 1870 contained an exclusion of clergy provision, but this provision was made into a dead letter by a United states Supreme Court decision. This means Constitutional provisions can be unconstitutional!)

• Why did the 1797 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, ratified by John Adams, begin with the words, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."

• Why did President Madison veto a Bill entitled "An Act incorporating the protestant Episcopal Church in the Town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia?"

• Why did the Federal Government, in 1810, refuse to honor the sabbath by refusing to stop Sunday mail delivery?

• Why is there clause in the U.S. Constitution that states that no religious test can be required as a qualification to hold office?

Bobbo, you like to pretend that you are somehow protecting and educating you listeners. But really, you're just spreading ignorance, fear, and disinformation. Why don't you repent so you can have even a modicum of respectability?

Irl

Bob and the Fairness Doctrine

For some time, Bob has been talking about how "the Democrats" are going to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

For those of you not familiar with the term, the Fairness Doctrine was an attempt by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to "ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair." As radio and television stations are using the public airwaves, the FCC reasoned that they had the "obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view." The Doctrine was eliminated by the FCC in the 80s.

I guess Bob is worried that if the Fairness Doctrine be reimposed, he would be out of a job, as his extreme right-wing bias will no longer be tolerated by the government. Now, Bob isn't alone in his ranting and raving about the Fairness Doctrine; most of the far right wing on the Republican Party is in on the act.

But here's what Bob isn't telling you about the Fairness Doctrine: Nobody is calling for its reinstatement! Marin Cogan of The New Republic went out looking for proponents of the Doctrine:

I looked at Obama's position--and it turns out that he doesn't want the policy reinstated. Then I called the array of Democratic congressmen who had been tagged by conservatives as doctrine proponents. But they all denied any intention to push for its reinstatement.

Steve Benen has also been providing excellent coverage of this issue.

So, why is Bob always talking up this upcoming "doomsday" scenario? My guess is it helps feed the persecution complex that Bob likes to spread among his listeners. Nothing keeps right wing anger alive better than the idea that the government is coming to get your Bible, your guns, and, of course, force Bob Dutko off the air.

Now, nothing would please me more than having Bob retired from radio and moved into a position more suitable for his talents. (Used car sales sounds about right.) However, the Fairness Doctrine simply will not be his undoing. Furthermore, it is important to note that even if the Doctrine were to be reinstated, Crawford Broadcasting wouldn't have to fire Dutko. They'd simply have to balance his content.

I for one, would welcome a daily four hours of "The Irl Hudnutt Show."

Bob loves Sodom and Gomorrah!

Bobbo,

Do you ever listen to yourself? You know, tune in to "best of" shows just to check your logic?

Probably not. You're too arrogant for that.

Anyway, today you "explained" the election of Barack Obama. First, you said that Barack Obama would be elected in Sodom and Gomorrah, so you weren't surprised. Next, you also said that a conservative wouldn't be elected in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Bobbo, I have some questions.

In your analogy, America is, obviously, Sodom and Gomorrah. On other occasions, you've expressed your deep and abiding love of America. Does this mean that you love America even though it's Sodom and Gomorrah? Being a Christian, isn't that inconsistent?

Next, when did America become Sodom and Gomorrah? And how do you explain the election of George W. Bush? If a conservative can't be elected in Sodom and Gomorrah, then either Bush isn't a conservative or American has become Sodom and Gomorrah in the last eight years. Which means, of course, that a conservative oversaw America as it became Sodom and Gomorrah.

I guess that either your analogy sucks or you don't know what you're talking about.

Hey, I could be wrong. It could be both.

Irl

Poor Bob: Everyone is Being Mean to Him!

On Friday, Bob whined that Obama supporters were being mean to him because of his non-stop attacks on the President-Elect over the past year. Bob couldn't seem to understand why there was so much vitriol directed towards him. After all, he was just expressing his opinion and producing some "facts," right?

Bob, let me help you understand: People aren't upset that you were attacking Obama. People were upset that you were ruthlessly and unfairly attacking Obama. Here's a short summary:

• Bob asserted that Obama wasn't qualified to be President even though he was.
• Bob questioned the patriotism of Obama and questioned whether he may have "anti-Americanism" running through his veins.
  
• Bob said Obama will "lay the foundation" for legislation to lock-up people who say that homosexuality is wrong.
• Bob accused Obama of associating with a terrorist for serving on a charity board with William Ayers, while repeatedly inviting a convicted felon and would-be clinic bomber on the show.
• Bob spent hours discussing the endorsement of Obama by Louis Farrakhan, even though Obama repudiated the endorsement.
• Bob tried to tie the actions of Obama supporter Larry Lessing to the President-elect, even though Barack had absolutely no control over such things.
• Bob lied about Barack Obama's voting record in the Illinois State Senate.
• Bob questioned the patriotism of Michelle Obama when even Laura Bush said she obviously misspoke.
• Bob constantly challenged any Christian who planned to vote for Obama and pretty much said that you couldn't be a real Christian and still vote for Obama.
• Bob said that while he didn't think Obama is the anti-Christ, he let his callers assert that he. Repeatedly.
• Bob spent about an hour discussing the significance of the Illinois lottery drawing the numbers '666' on the day after the election.
  
• And, of course, in addition to all of the above, Bob wanted people to find Obama guilty of hating America because he attended the church where Jeremiah Wright was the preacher.

So Bob, if you can't find the line that you've crossed in your treatment of Barack Obama, then you're beyond hope.

Feel free to add any other examples of Bob's ruthless attacks in the comments...