Bob Doesn't Like The Shoe Being On The Other Foot

Today, Bob was outraged! Outraged over the Department of Homeland Security releasing a report saying what I’ve been saying for years: There is a growing right-wing terror threat in this country.

"Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning," the assessment reads.

"The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.," it continues.

Bob is crying that the report is saying that ANYONE who has a conservative viewpoint is now being accused of being a terrorist.

No, Bob. You know that’s not what it’s saying.

What it’s saying is that the groups long ignored by the Bush administration, like The Army of God, are now using the election of Barack Obama as an excuse to carry out acts of terrorism.

Bob, now you know how the Muslims felt when you made them out to all be terrorists. (And I know: You’ll claim that you never said they were ALL terrorists.)

But remember you did say that most Muslims are either terrorists or supporting terrorists.

Oh, ye hypocrites....

Bob is crying that Bush didn’t do this to liberals. Sure he did. Remember the Earth Liberation Front? A left-wing terrorist group that was described as “the most serious threat to the nation.”

Quitcher cryin’, Bob. You’re getting what you had coming to you.

EDIT: Bob just brought up ELF, saying it wasn't the same because liberals weren't painted with such a "broad brush". Oh c'mon, Bob! You love painting Muslims with a broad brush! Welcome to their world!

Also, Bob, it might help if you didn't have terrorists like Cheryl Sullenger on your show.

BTW-I tried calling Bob to tell him this. The phone rang 50 times before the line went dead. Maybe they have my number blacklisted:).

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.

Bob Shows His Racism Again

Today, Bob declared that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will have to get new jobs. From this point forward, they will have nothing to complain about because of Obama's win was elected to the Office of the President.

Yep, Bob thinks Obama's election cured America of its race problems.

Bob, realizing what he said, tried to cover his admission by claiming that he's glad Obama broke the race barrier.

Bob, you ignorant jackass: Racism isn't dead in America. We're going to see many, many examples of it, now that Obama's elected.

Bob Wants The Left To Stop Playing The Race Card

On Friday, Bob complained that he’s sick and tired of liberals playing the race card when discussing politics. He was talking about immigration, but accused the Obama campaign of playing racial politics in the past.

I know that incidents of “subtle” racism such as Obama waffles and food stamps with Obama’s face on them (featuring fried chicken and watermelon) would go right past Bob’s head. So here’s a few incidents where the racism is about as subtle as a boot to the face:

1. Mike Lunsford, of Fairfield, OH, hung an Obama ghost in a tree. When asked about it, he openly admitted that he didn’t want to vote for a black person.

2. Obama billboard has Obama in a turban.

3. Lady tells McCain she’s worried about Obama because “he’s an Arab.” (Sometimes people on the right are so ignorant that they can’t even get the race right.)

4. White supremists are saying that if Obama is elected, there will be a race war.

5. A man sold “Obama in 08!” T-shirts that displayed Curious George eating a banana.

I could keep going, you can learn about this yourself. Googling “Obama Racism” will turn up much more.

Here's what Bob won't comprehend: If you want liberals to stop bringing up racism, stop being racist. It’s pretty simple.

Bob Dutko: Islamophobe

Today, I tuned in to hear Bob ranting and raving about the work schedule of a Tyson poultry processing plant in Tennessee. Now, why would Bob care about such a trivial matter?

Well you see, a large percentage of workers at the plant are Somali immigrants who practice the Islamic faith. The union representing the plant's workers recently negotiated a new contract which switches one of the plant's eight paid holidays. Specifically, the union and management agreed to swap Labor Day for the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr.

Bob was outraged. He went on and on about how immigrants to the U.S. need to respect our traditions and conform to the way things are in this country. Bob opined that if he was a worker at that plant, he would be "irritated" that he couldn't take Labor Day off to celebrate with his family.

Guess what? That Tyson plant historically requires its employees to work on Labor Day, despite it being a paid holiday. In fact, they've worked on Labor Day in that plant for the previous 23 years! So you see, the workers aren't really giving up Labor Day as a holiday, because they didn't get it off anyway. Instead, they're gaining a day off!

But even if Labor Day was a true "day off" to workers in the past, I still can't see any reasonable justification for Bob's outrage. This is simply a group of employees getting the religious holiday that they want off with pay in exchange for a secular holiday that isn't that important to them. The company is honoring their freedom to practice their faith as they see fit. Sounds like a textbook example of religious freedom in action to me. But perhaps Bob doesn't really believe in religious freedom. Maybe he only believes in "freedom" for Christians so long as those Christians conform to his standards of what should and shouldn't be a paid holiday. But I digress...

Plus, Bob's whole assertion that Labor Day is a sacrosanct "day off" for all is preposterous. Millions of Americans work on Labor Day every year from Denny's waitresses to clerks at Bronner's CHRISTmas Wonderland. If Bob's not worried about Christians being asked to work on Labor Day, why is he worried about Muslims volunteering to do so?

So what was Bob's purpose in all this? My guess is that he wants to demonize Muslims, present them as a "threat" to the American Way of Life, and thus promote division and animosity among Americans. That way, you'll vote Republican... out of fear for the dangerous Muslim "threat." After all, we're kicking Muslim ass in Iraq, aren't we?

Bob's Iraq News Bubble

I have to wonder how Bob keeps him insulated from the reality of what the United States has done to the people of Iraq as a result of our invasion and occupation.

Today, Bob decided to berate American Muslims for not supporting George W. Bush and the Republicans after they launched the disastrous war in Iraq. Bob called this "a problem that exists even among moderate Muslims in America." Bob wanted these Muslims to self-examine their thoughts on this issue. After all, look at all the great things that Bush and the Republicans accomplished:

• Removed Saddam Hussein
• Went to war with (and defeated!) al-Qaida and "the terrorists"
• Wiretapped telephone calls from "terrorists"
• Profiled Muslims getting on planes

Bob thinks moderate Muslims should be cheering on Bush for all these "accomplishments".

Well, Bob, let me give you my thoughts why Muslims, as well as reasonable, compassionate persons of all beliefs, might not be so super duper happy with George W. Bush and the Republicans:

In short, the U.S., under orders of George W. Bush, took a stable, functioning state (Iraq) made up primarily of Muslims, and turned into a non-stop, hell-like war zone. Sure, Iraq was no paradise under Saddam Hussein. But at least the vast majority of people had a decent existence and didn't fear for their lives and future at every moment. Let's look at George W. Bush's actual accomplishments in Iraq and the "war on terror" in general:

1. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
   
2. 1.4 Million Iraqis that are displaced from their homes.
3. Over $600 billion spent for the Iraq War alone.
4. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the men behind the 9/11 attacks, have still not been captured or killed!
   

Our invasion of Iraq utterly and irreversibly screwed up Iraq and shattered the lives of millions of Muslims. And of course, all Americans, including the Muslim ones, will end up paying for this debacle for decades to come.

Does that clear things up for you Bob?

Bob should love RU486!

Bob pretends to care about the health of women. Take a listen to his screed from last Monday against mifepristone, also known as RU486, the prescription drug that's been used by millions of women around the world to induce an abortion.

Did y'know here here in the U.S., there have been at least seven women that it's confirmed that their deaths have been linked to taking RU486, the abortion drug...that's basically just about one person minimum per year dying from taking this. Now I want you, just try to imagine for a moment: what Asprin company do you think, just pick your Asprin, or Tylenol, anything like that, what over the counter drug, could anyone take, we'll say for headaches, where you would have an average of a minimum of one person die from taking it, that the FDA wouldn't be yanking that stuff off the shelf? You have that right now with RU486.

First of all, a recent study by University of Michigan researchers shows that misuse of the drug may be related to deaths from mifepristone. Apparently, some women were using the drug vaginally instead of orally.

But let's take a look at Bob's assertion that mifepristone is somehow a dangerous drug that should be yanked off the shelves. This article in the New England Journal of Medicine pretty much lays waste to this assertion. Basically, the death rate of using mifepristone is about 1 in 100,000 (or .01%). The death rate for carrying the pregnancy to term is 8 to 10 times higher than that!

Why isn't Bob warning women against the risk of death of getting pregnant? The fact of the matter is it's safer for a woman to have an abortion than to carry the child to term!

And Bob's wrong again about mifepristone's safety in comparison to other drugs. Acetaminophen (Tylenol) causes over 400 deaths per year due to liver failure. Sildenafil (Viagra) has been linked to hundreds of deaths.

Why isn't Bob warning his audience against the risk of taking Tylenol or Viagra?

Because this isn't about women's health issues. No, Bob simply wants to criminalize abortion in all cases, no matter what the circumstances. Rape, incest, birth defects... none of that matters to Dutko.

What's truly odd is Bob's feigning compassion for women taking mifepristone given that, if he applied some logical reasoning, he should support these deaths. Look:

1. Bob believes abortion is murder.
2. Bob believes that a woman having an abortion is guilty of murder and should be punished accordingly.
   
3. Bob believes in the death penalty.

Therefore, if Bob had his way, a woman who has an abortion could be put to be death for committing a murder. Using Bob's own standards, therefore, it seems that mifepristone is simply saving a lot of time and expense by killing the woman without the bother of a trial.

So spare us the false concern, Bob. We know that you're a misogynist.

Gays and Lesbians Can't Be Cops?

Today, in his never ending quest to show how much he "loves the sinner, but hates the sin," Bob dispensed some of his patented truth, facts, logic, and "intellectual" reasoning to show why gay men can't be police officers.

Bob's premise is that straight male police officers are not permitted to frisk or pat down a female suspect. According to Bob, this is done because the male police officer might "get his jollies"* from the frisking process. Therefore, Bob reasons that gay men might also take some liberties when patting down a male suspect.

But let's go back to Bob's original premise. In Bob's own words:

Should a male cop be allowed to frisk and pat down a female suspect? Should they? Right now they're not allowed to. Thats where a female police officer has to come in and do that. Right?

Wrong. What Bob apparently doesn't understand is that male police offers pat down female suspects and vice-versa all the time. In fact, here's an article describing the procedure.

So Bob's argument falls completely apart because it rests on a false premise. That's nothing new. Bob has a long history of not understanding (or lying about) science, history, and a whole host of other topics.

And I have some shocking news for Bob: There are gay men serving right now as police officers. Really! They pat down male suspects every day without incident and without "getting their jollies" from the procedure. What Bob apparently doesn't understand is that the vast majority of male cops, straight or gay, are not sexual predators who see every frisk as an opportunity to, pardon the pun, "cop a feel". The frisking procedure is done not to humiliate the suspect, but to protect the police officer and the public at large.

Bob should really be ashamed of even presenting this whole argument. But he won't be.

*Bob's words

Survey Results that Bob can be Proud Of

It turns out that Coral Ridge Ministries performed a survey of its members. One of the questions was, "how dangerous are the following to the spiritual health of America?" The results won't be shocking to Bob Dutko listeners, as these are all the things that he rails against on a daily basis.

How dangerous are the following to the spiritual health of America?

	Very	Somewhat	Not very
The ACLU and similar groups	96	3	1
Pro-homosexual indoctrination	95	4	1
Abortion	93	6	1
Islamic terrorism	91	8	1
Hollywood	89	10	1
News Media	87	12	1
Darwinism/evolution	85	14	1
Cults and false religion	82	16	2
Atheism	82	16	2
Courts	81	18	1
Apathetic/uninformed Christians	79	20	1
Colleges and Universities	78	21	1
Public education (K-12)	69	29	2
Congress	63	35	2

These are the result of preaching fear. Can someone explain to me how the ACLU or other civil liberties groups are "dangerous to the spiritual health of America?"

Has the ACLU ever attempted to suppress the rights of Churches to preach to its members?

Of course not.

And exactly what is "pro-homosexual indoctrination?" I've been around for 30 some years now and have never had a "pro-homosexual" attempt to "indoctrinate" me.

Aaaargh!

Demonization

This blog isn't about demonizing Bob Dutko. This blog points out out his errors, bias and willful ignorance.

To find a true example of demonization, one must look to The Bob Dutko Show and see a true master at work. These are quotations from Bob's interview with Ravi Zacharias, that aired earlier this week. The topic of discussion was the "new atheists," like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Bob and Ravi did a very thorough job on these guys:

RZ: They [new atheists] are really the new hate priests. It [atheism] is similar to the philosophy of terrorism.
...
RZ: They [new atheists] absolutely want a totalitarianism of belief; an ideological demagoguery...
...
RZ: That tells you the bigotry of this kind of thinking.
...
BD: Isn't this fear driven?
...
RZ: The bigotry of relativism and radical liberalism.
...
RZ: Relativism is so intolerant and radical liberalism is so intolerant; it may be fear driven...
...
RZ: Without resorting to the same vitriol [as the atheists], without resorting to the same hate mentality...
...
RZ: When you listen to Dawkins...the hate that comes through...
...
BD: They're [atheists] very angry and hateful...
...
BD: Hitchens ... is very hateful in the things that he says. R: And that's in keeping with their world view. Love is not at the center of their world view. Human value is not at the center of their world view.
...
BD: Y'know doctor we were discussing the hatred that seems to exist in this new crop of atheists. ... You can almost see the veins popping out of their foreheads with the anger that the feel toward a belief in God.
...
RZ: He [Sam Harris] ought not to be in such vitriolic attack...

All these negative words attached to the "new atheists" and "atheism" in order to destroy these people.

Well played, Bob Dutko. Well played.

According to Bob Dutko, Black People Are A Bunch of Lazy, Dumb Sluts

Today, Bob recited The Heritage Foundation's alleged debunking of a study done by The Eisenhower Foundation.

The Eisenhower Foundation released a poverty study to show how well the anti-poverty policies of the Johnson administration worked. According to TEF, we still have a lot of work to do to eliminate poverty, inequality, racial justice, and crime.

I think that most people would agree with this. I think that most Americans believe that this country still has too many people living in poverty, and that minorities make up a higher percentage of people living in poverty.

But The Heritage Foundation, putting their two cents in found that blaming the victim explains inequality:

Robert Rector, senior research fellow on poverty and family issues at the Heritage Foundation, says the Eisenhower Foundation may claim to be nonpartisan, but in fact comprises a small group of "extreme left-wingers."

According to Rector, the report completely ignores the three major causes of poverty. "One is that 69 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and those children are raised without a father in the home," he says. "The second is lower levels of work and more welfare receipt; if you're on welfare, [it] doesn't pay enough for you to get out of poverty. The third is low levels of actual educational attainment -- real math and verbal skills."

I'll translate: The Heritage Foundation thinks that black people are poor because they all just sleep around and are too busy sucking off of welfare to get a real job or education.

Bob repeated this word for word, without even reading the study!

Let's take a look at The Heritage Foundation:

The Heritage Foundation was created by racist beer baron Joseph Coors. The Coors family has an extensive history of racism, as can be documented here. Joseph Coors hired Roger Pearson to be co-editor of The Hertiage Foundaton's Policy Review. Pearson wrote a number of racist works, including the book "Race and Civilization." The racism of THF is evidenced in their reports on racism, in which everyone of them seeks to claim that racism doesn't exist, or isn't a problem. The real problem, according to them, is that black people are lazy and dumb. Here's a quote from one of their articles:

"So blaming racism for our lack of achievement is, at best, a misplaced focus and is, at worst, what I call social insanity. Now, let me tell you what I mean by social insanity. If you believe that racism prevents you from achieving any particular goal, then inherent in that belief is the granting of the power to succeed to the partisans of racism."

In other words, pretend racism doesn't exist and it'll simply go away!

But back to Bob.

Bob has knowingly quoted a racist organization that seeks to make black people look lazy and stupid. And he did it with a quote that is designed to do just that. By giving credibility to the organization through quoting such rubbish, Bob has decided to put into the minds of his white listeners that:

1) Racism isn't a problem in America.
2) Black people are in poverty because they're lazy, slutty, and dumb.

Remember this the next time Bob wants to bring up the racism of people he seeks to demonize.

Prayer in the Public Schools

I don't think it's a stretch to believe that if Bob had his way, there would be Christian prayer in every public school at just about every imaginable time. There would be prayer at the start of every school day, before athletic events, and at graduation ceremonies.

I, on the other hand, am opposed to public schools being used as a platform to impose the religion of the majority on the minority. It's cases like this out of Delaware that remind me why:

Mrs. Dobrich, an Orthodox Jew, grew up in Sussex County. Though often the lone Jewish student in school, she said, she did not have problems with Christians or others. For years, while her daughter, Samantha, now 21, attended local schools, Mrs. Dobrich said, she listened to Christian prayers at school potluck dinners, award dinners and meetings of parent-teacher groups.

At Samantha’s high school graduation in 2004, a minister’s prayer proclaiming Jesus as the only way to the truth nudged Mrs. Dobrich to ask the school board to consider more generic and less exclusionary prayers, she said.

As news of the request spread, many local Christians saw it as an effort to limit the free exercise of religion, residents said. Anger spilled onto talk radio, in letters to the editor and at school board meetings attended by hundreds of people carrying signs praising Jesus.

...

Her son, Alex, then 11, had written a short statement that said in part: “I feel bad when kids in my class call me ‘Jew boy.’ I do not want to move away from the house I have lived in forever.”

After the family received threats, Mrs. Dobrich said, she and Alex moved to Wilmington.

This is a shining example of why public schools must be secular institutions, free of interference by religion. Here, the mother here didn't ask that prayer be removed from schools. She only wanted the "Jesus is the only way" rhetoric toned down and a less exclusionary approach implemented.

How did the so-called Christian townspeople react?

They drove her family out.

It's also an excellent illustration of not only why church/state separation is necessary, but also an example of antisemitism.

But Bob hasn't mentioned this story.

Bob will imply that Barack Obama is antisemitic because Louis Farrakhan endorsed him.

Why doesn't Bob speak out about the antisemitism of Christians in Delaware?

Bob is Pro-Choice!

Hey Bobbo;

Do you actually listen to yourself? Or do you just make it all up as you go along?

You speak of abortion frequently, and, recently addressed the story of Jennifer Strelnik McKendree, who pleaded guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of her newborn child. McKendree's sentence was 2 to 9 years.

You thought McKendree should go to jail because she murdered her newborn. You then compared McKendree's child with a child in the womb. You believe that just as a McKendree murdered her infant, a woman who gets an abortion murders her child. You believe that abortion should be made illegal because there is, categorically, no difference between a fetus and an infant. Therefore, you argue, it follows that, once abortion is made illegal, women who get abortions should go to jail.

Then you said something interesting. You said that once abortion is illegal, only those women who get abortions should go to jail. There should be no retroactive prosecutions of women who have had abortions, because they obtained the procedure while it was legal.

But, Bobbo, isn't abortion was always murder? If I follow your line of reasoning, abortions obtained between January 22, 1973 and today are categorically not murder. By arguing that there are some abortions that aren't murder, you've become pro-woman. Congratulations on the sea change!

Let me know when you start making donations to Planned Parenthood. I'll match any donation you make.

Yours in choice,

Irl

Bob's Quest for Government Control of Women

Over the last few years, I've learned much about Bob Dutko's beliefs on how the government should control a woman's reproductive system. For instance, I've learned that Bob believes the government should outlaw the sale or distribution of oral contraceptives because they might cause a fertilized egg to be expelled in a woman's monthly period. We also know that Bob would imprison women who have abortions (at taxpayers expense, of course) because they are guilty of "murder".

But I learned something new last Tuesday. A caller asked Bob if he would allow a woman to have an abortion if her life was at risk. Bob replied, saying he would "need to have several doctors, a good three or four doctors, including Christian doctors, verify exactly the same situation that there is no chance whatsoever the mother is going to survive unless we take that baby out of there." Bob also opined, "what I think happens is this is a risky birth, and the mother is in some kind of risk by ... carrying the baby to term and we tend to call that 'protecting the mother's life'." (Bob's emphasis)

Wow, look at all that. So, if a woman is told by her doctor that her life is in danger by continuing a pregnancy, Bob would require that the woman visit two or three more doctors to verify the diagnosis. Also, one of those doctors needs to be a professing Christian, even though the woman may not be a Christian and one's religion really shouldn't have anything to do with a medical diagnosis. Furthermore, each doctor must believe, with 100% certainty, that there is "no chance whatsoever" that the woman would survive without the abortion. Apparently, if the doctor thinks there is a 70, 80, or 90% chance of death, those odds would not be good enough to permit the woman to have an abortion.

Bob doesn't say how he would enforce such a cumbersome system. I'm guessing that since abortion would be generally illegal in Bob's ideal world, an agency of the government would have to review the woman's medical records before clearing her to have a legal abortion. Plus, the government would have to check all the doctor's Christian credentials. Would that include records of attendance at church? And I thought Bob didn't want government involved in health care!

Folks, I just don't think Bob has thought this one through. In fact, I don't think Bob thinks a lot of things through. But one thing is clear: if Bob and his ilk get their way, we're headed for a dangerous and depressing future as far as medicine is concerned...

Islam vs. Chistianity

Bob loves to talk about the various acts of murder, violence, and other horrors perpetrated by Muslims and those who profess to follow that faith. Granted, there have been plenty of evil acts committed by those who worship Allah or claim to act in his name.

However, Bob seems to think that Christians are somehow immune from this insane and irrational behavior. Indeed, Bob often remarks with a certain smugness that these behaviors are prohibited by Christianity but actually endorsed by Islam.

But Bob conveniently stays ignorant of the various bad acts committed by Christians and/or willfully doesn't comment on such acts. In the rare instances where Bob does mention such acts, he simply dismisses the perpetrators as not being true Christians. But despite Bob's ignorance, silence, and denial, some Christians do perform despicable acts in the name of their religion. For example, in Nigeria, evangelical Christian pastors are labeling children as witches in order to extort money for exorcisms. As a result, hundreds or thousands of children have been murdered, abused, and abandoned. You can bank on the fact that Bob won't be "reporting" about this anytime soon.

My point here isn't that Christianity is somehow a bad religion that endorses or encourages bad acts. My point is only that if these acts in Nigeria were be committed by Muslims, Bob would be telling you all about it and claiming that Islam is a horrible, violent faith. This hypocritical view serves only to foster hatred and division. Furthermore, by focusing on religion as a sole cause of such violence, it keeps people from focusing on the other reasons why people act in this way. These reasons include poverty, suffering, hopelessness, and social injustice. But there's the liberal in me talking.

Bob lies about Islam

Bob seems to likes fostering divisions between people, as I've discussed before. It is clear to me that he wants his listeners to ignore the commonalities between the various peoples of our country and instead focus on differences, even if those differences are fabricated. He is one of the most negative people I've ever had the displeasure to listen to.

As an example, today Bob talked about a story in the Detroit News that explained the Hajj pilgrimage. But instead of actually discussing the story, Bob went on and on about how Islam is not an Abrahamic religion. His rationale is that since Islam was founded by Mohammad in the 7th Century, that it's not rooted in Abraham. But what Bob doesn't tell you is that Koran has numerous references to Abraham and that Muslims believe Abraham is their spiritual father. In fact, a main aspect of the Hajj pilgrimage is honoring Abraham!

So why does Bob want to promote division and animosity? What could possibly be the reason? Does Bob not want there to be understanding between people of different faiths and beliefs?

Bob and Rape in Saudi Arabia

On Wednesday, Bob talked about the abhorrent conviction and punishment of a women in Saudi Arabia who was ganged raped. Bob is right to be outraged. The treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, and in other parts of the Muslim world, is often inhumane and unconscionable.

So then Bob criticized the "media" for not reporting these abuses vigorously enough. After that, he went on a screed about how "the very same people" who criticize a lack of equality for women in the U.S. by some religious groups are "silent" about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. Take a listen.

Bob doesn't identify who these "very same people" are. Instead, he's created some general bogeyman to attack. In this case, it appears that his bogeyman is "feminists." But it's important to note that numerous feminist organizations have not been silent about this injustice in Saudi Arabia.

It's like Bob was trying to say, "Hey, these feminists shouldn't be complaining about the sexism of some Christians; instead, they should be focused on the really bad Muslims." First of all, why is it wrong to combat injustice no matter what its degree? Can only the most egregious abuses be criticized? Second, Bob's argument is kind of analogous to me verbally abusing my wife but then saying, "you shouldn't be mad; just be happy that I'm not beating you."

I did, however, find something interesting about who wasn't seriously criticizing the Saudi government over this verdict. Namely, I was upset that the U.S. government, led by President George W. Bush, did not strongly condemn the Saudis. Instead, the U.S. government only offered "mild criticism."

[State Department spokesman Sean] McCormack declined to directly criticize its close ally, or the Saudi legal system, which has made a series of erratic verdicts in recent months. "I don't have anything else to offer," said McCormack when pressed on whether Washington condemned the court's decision... Asked whether the Saudi authorities should reconsider the sentence against the woman, McCormack said he could not "get involved in specific court cases in Saudi Arabia dealing with its own citizens."

Bob spends an inordinate amount of time praising and promoting Bush and the Republicans. But did anybody hear him criticize Bush or the administration in this matter whatsoever? Bob can take time to criticize the "media" and unnamed feminists, but not Bush?

In an unrelated story, here's a picture of Bush and Saudi Prince Abdullah holding hands as they stroll through spring flowers at Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch.

UPDATE (12/4 10:30 PM): Bush talked to Saudi King Abdullah last week. When asked if he pressed the rape case issue with him, George said, "he doesn't remember if the subject came up." Classic.

Gay-friendly Churches

Bob spent some time today blacklisting gay friendly churches by outing them on the air and encouraging them to get their names removed from this list. He compared gay friendly churches to being "drunkenness friendly."*

But Bob doesn't hate gay people. He just wants to make sure that no churches welcome them. Kind of like shunning or excommunication or something like that.

*(I always thought drunks were welcome at church! Shows what I know)

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 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.