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.

The Hypocrisy of the Obama-Notre Dame Protests

Today, Bob talked about the kerfuffle regarding Obama giving a speech to the 2009 graduates at the University of Notre Dame*. As most people know, Notre Dame is a Catholic university, and therefore at least nominally under control of the Catholic Church.

This "controversy" stems from Barack Obama's political position on abortion. Obama is pro-choice, which means that he doesn't want to use the power of the government to regulate whether or not a woman has an abortion. Well, the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is against God's law and should be outlawed by the state. As the two positions are seemingly in opposition, some Catholic Bishops (less than 30%), as well as serial kooks Alan Keyes and Randall Terry, are now protesting Obama's speaking engagement.

But there is more to Catholic theology than just abortion. For example, the Catholic Church also teaches that capital punishment is against God's law and should be outlawed by the state. Now, some of you may remember the previous President's position on capital punishment: he was all for it! As Governor of Texas, George W. Bush approved over 150 executions and as President, he pushed for an expansion in the use of the death penalty in capital cases.

So, where exactly was the outrage when Bush addressed the 2001 Notre Dame graduating class? Well, there was none. This makes no sense, as the Catholic Church does not differentiate between abortion and capital punishment as sins. Their position is that they are both against God's law and both should be outlawed by the state. Therefore, it's blatantly hypocritical to protest one President (Obama) while giving the other a pass (Bush), when they both have positions that are antithetical to teachings of the Church.

Of course, I didn't hear Bob address this hypocrisy, which is par for the course. Just another day at the Bob Dutko Show!

*What continues to amaze me about Bob is his ability to get even the simplest facts incorrect. For instance, several times today he referred to Notre Dame as the largest Catholic university in the United States. Of course, Bob is wrong; DePaul is the largest with over 24,000 students. Georgetown, with 14k students, also beats NDs 11.6k students. If Bob can't get the simple stuff right, what makes anyone think his other "facts" are correct?

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."

Bob Asks: I Answer

Today, Bob asked:

What have we done against the ... peaceful Muslim people in Iraq that is so wrong that it should cause President Bush to be hated like this?

I answer:

1. We invaded their country and continue to occupy it today;
2. This invasion destroyed their government and resulted in a civil war;
3. Our invasion and the resulting civil war have resulted in about a hundred thousand deaths of Iraqi civilians; and
4. Our invasion and the resulting civil war have also resulted in over 4 million displaced Iraqis.

And Bob, no matter how many times you say it, the belligerents in the Iraqi Civil War are not "foreign terrorists" that the U.S. had to drive out. The belligerents are overwhelmingly Iraqi nationals.

Dumb or Lying?

Here's a little Dutko inconsistency that Irl and I were discussing last night.

• Before the election, Bob repeatedly said that he wouldn't vote for the Constitution Party candidate because, even though this candidate more accurately represents his Christian beliefs, there was little to know chance that this candidate could win.
• Instead, Bob has stated that he, and good "Christians" like him, should vote for the Republican candidate, John McCain, even though McCain is wrong on such "Christian" issues like embryonic stem cell research.
  
• After the election, Bob stated that he absolutely knew that McCain had no chance of winning Michigan. But, Bob went to vote for McCain to show God that he's voting with His interests.

So this begs the question, if Bob knew that McCain couldn't carry Michigan, then why didn't he vote for the Constitution Party candidate? There are three options as I see it:

1. Bob is lying when he said he knew that McCain had no chance of winning;
   
2. Bob is lying about his rationale for not voting for the Constitutional Party candidate (e.g., Bob is just an advocate for the Republican Party no matter what); or
3. Bob is too dumb to realize the logical inconsistency in his reasoning.

Remember: Bob is a self-proclaimed master of "logic."

None of it Worked

Over the past year, Bob has done everything he could to denigrate Barack Obama.

Bob questioned Obama's qualifications to be President.

Bob hypothesized that Obama would lay the ground work for imprisoning Christians.

Bob tried to impose the sins of Jeremiah Wright onto Obama.

Bob lied about Obama's voting record.

Bob questioned Obama's patriotism.

Bob questioned the patriotism of Michelle Obama.

Bob implied that Obama was a cult leader.

Bob accused Obama of being a terrorist sympathizer.

Bob asserted that Obama would raise the taxes of all Americans, even though Obama has promised otherwise.

But none of it worked.

Today, Michiganders and a majority of America rejected the politics of Bob Dutko and the far right Republican Party.

For that, I am cautiously optimistic.

The Callers are Starting to Wise Up

Today, Bob's plan was to dedicate 40 minutes to the Christian members of his audience to call in and tell why they're supporting Barack Obama, then another 40 minutes for supporters of John McCain to call in and make their case.

But a surprising thing happened when Bob came back to start the segment. There were no Obama supporters on the line.

Bob was perplexed about the lack of Obama supporters.

Hey Bob, let me tell you why your phone lines weren't all lit up: It's because your listeners have figured out your game. They know what's in store for them if they call in: You ridicule their reasoning and accuse them of not being Christian because the support a pro-choice candidate.

Why would anyone want to call in and have some flunkie with a a high school education tell them how their beliefs are not "Christian" enough?

Bob Jumps On The Anti-ACORN Bandwagon

You can always count on Bobby to spin the issues the way the right-wing wants him to. Today, Bob just finished up bashing ACORN, the group that conservatives are accusing of voter fraud by turning in false voter registration cards.

Bob said that these are only the ones that got caught, and that we'll never really know how far this thing goes.

Of course what Bobbo didn't tell you was that the reason why the people turning in voter registration forms got caught was because ACORN reported them.

When ACORN received voter registration cards that looked suspicious, they flagged them before turning them into election officials. They're required by law to turn them in, even if they think they're invalid. You cannot throw away a voter registration card just because YOU think it's not right. Had ACORN done that, they would've been accused of throwing away legitimate voter registration cards.

This is all an attempt by conservatives like Bob Dutko to claim that the 2008 election was stolen when it's obvious that Obama's going to win. They don't want to admit to themselves that people aren't buying into the false ideas of conservatism, so they'll lie and say it was stolen.

Well too bad. When your opponent is leading by 15 points in the polls, you can't be taken seriously when you say the election was stolen. If Obama and McCain were neck and neck, you could give the conspiracy theory some traction. But when Obama's leading by double digits, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for losing.

Bob is an Ignorant Scumbag

Bobbo,

Do you believe your own bullshit?

Today you spent time blaming liberals for the mean and evil things Randi Rhodes says on her radio show. This is what Rhodes said:

She’s the woman who shows up at the kid’s birthday party and starts opining about everything from politics to lawn care. This is the woman that knows it all. Will shout you down, will get revenge on you. That’s who she is.

She's friends with all the teenage boys. You have to say no when your kids say, 'can we sleep over at the Palin’s? No! NO!'

From this, you magically know that Rhodes is calling Palin a pedophile.

Beyond your statement being downright ignorant, I have a question for you: Why don't you ever spend time policing right wing radio?

You want to excoriate liberals for being “guilty of the things they accuse Conservative of being,” while failing to point out the log in your own eye.

Here's a recent statement from Michael Savage:

Cops are getting knocked off all over the country because of the rules of engagement, written primarily by the scummiest class in America, the vermin of vermin, which are the left-wing lawyers who should be put in Abu Ghraib with hoods over their head, as far as I'm concerned."

Here's a gem from Neal Boortz:

For instance, or for goodness sakes, jump in and I'm gonna say -- I'm gonna start out with something controversial. I saw Cynthia McKinney's new hair-do...[s]he looks like a ghetto slut.

And here's a goody from Glen Beck:

OK, so anyway, I was talking about ugly people. Ugly people, if you're a guy, you can get past it. I don't think you can as an ugly woman. I don't -- no, I don't. If you're an ugly woman, I apologize. Oh, you've got a double cross, because if you're an ugly woman, you're probably a progressive as well.

So Bobbo, why do you never call out right-wingers for hate speech? Maybe because you worship in the temple of Republicans and only care about vilifying people to win elections.

You're no Christian, Bob. You're a fucking coward and hypocrite.

Irl

Sarah Palin

Today, Bob spent the vast majority of the day attacking "the liberal media" for talking about the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's unmarried, 17-year old daughter. Bob threw around words like "despicable" and "sleazy" to describe the media. I would estimate that Bob devote about 3 hours of his 4 hour program to talking about how horrible the media is for talking about Gov. Palin's daughter's behavior that is clearly sinful in the eyes of God.

I actually agree with Bob in this regard. The fact that Bristol Palin can't keep her panties on until after she's married is frankly none of my business. I could care less what she does with her vagina and uterus.

But, of course, this outrage at the "media" is simply a smokescreen to divert your attention from the real issues surrounding Gov. Palin. Here's just a sample:

• Palin is under investigation for firing of public safety commissioner Walter Monegan. Monegan maintains that he was let go for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a State Trooper.
• While Palin was mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, she racked up a debt of over $20 million. That's about $3,000 per resident. (So much for fiscal conservatism!)
  
• As mayor of Wasilla, Palin asked all managers of the city to resign as a "test their loyalty". No kidding!

But I think the most damning charge against her revolves around her ties with the Alaska Independence Party. The AIP's primary goal is to secede Alaska from the United States. Her husbaned was a member of the party and Palin herself delivered a videotaped speech to the party just six months ago! Bob says its alright to question Barack Obama's patriotism because he doesn't wear a U.S. flag lapel pin. I have to assume that her involvement with the AIP makes it OK to question Sarah Palin's patriotism!

Hey, Bob: Barack Obama himself says to lay off Sarah Palin's family. Why don't you stop talking about it as well and take some time to look at the real ethical problems with this candidate?

Another Day, Another Display of Hypocrisy

A couple of years back, Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard appeared on Bob's show to drum up support from Bob's flock during his disastrous run for U.S. Senate. Before the "interview" began, I emailed Bob and reminded him to ask Bouchard if he's ever cheated on his wife and how that relates to his Christian faith.

After the interview, Bob wrote to me and said that he considered it "a matter between him, his wife, and God." But without prompting, Bob launched into a defense of his numerous on-air discussions about Bill Clinton's sex life. In the email, Bob argued that he only talked about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky because of the perjury charge. Well, why not let Bob do the talking:

If he [Bouchard] did what Bill Clinton did by committing the felony of perjury in an attempt to deny a fair trial to another citizen (Paula Jones), then Bouchard's affair WOULD become public business, not because he had an affair, but because he broke the law. That's always been my position, without change. That's why when there have been news stories about Democrats having affairs, I have always ignored them, every time. I didn't even criticize Jesse Jackson for his affair a couple of years ago. He broke no laws and so I considered that a personal issue that was none of my business. I assumed he repented and asked forgiveness and that's always been good enough for me. As a matter of fact, you are not able to come up with one example ever of me criticizing a Democrat for having an affair. Not one. Why? Because I have always been consistent on what the Bible says about forgiveness for the repentant sinner.
(emphasis added)

So imagine my shock when I tuned in today to hear to hear Bob talking to some woman about allegations, by supermarket tabloid National Enquirer, that John Edwards had an extramarital affair.

Huh? What happened to all of Bob's rhetoric about "always" being "consistent" and "always" ignoring news stories about Democrats having affairs? Bob, I thought you said this type of thing was "a personal issue that was none of [your] business"? How did John Edwards' alleged infidelity suddenly become your business? Where's the law breaking in the case of Edwards? Heck, Edwards doesn't hold any public office and is no longer running for any office! So why is this "news" story even on Dutko's show?!

So here we are with another shining example of Bob's hypocrisy. His discussion today was merely another instance of his never-ending demonization of Democrats. Bob won't talk about how Republican presidential candidate John McCain cheated on his wife. Furthermore, there's no shortage of other Republican sex scandals that Bob could talk about. But he won't. Because he's a liar, a hypocrite, and a GOP shill. Nothing more.

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?

Sorry, but the Obama Attacks Must Continue

A couple weeks back, during "free-for-all-Friday," a loyal listener called in and asked that Bob lay off Barack Obama just a bit. This listener was a Christian and a conservative. His humble request was that Bob take simply one day and make it Obama-free because it was getting hard to listen every day to the constant attacks.

Bob refused.

I recently found this blog post from a listener to the show. He warns Bob that his continuous attacks on Barack Obama will alienate Bob's black, Christian audience.

I hate to break it to these gentlemen, but the attacks on Obama will continue unabated until the election. Every day. Several times each day. Why? Because Barack Obama is a Democrat and has a different view on a few social issues (i.e., abortion) than Bob. Really, that's it in a nutshell. It doesn't matter that Obama wants to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home from that meat grinder. It doesn't matter that Obama wants to ensure healthcare is available and affordable for all Americans. All the initiatives that Obama wants to help out working families -- well, they don't matter either. Because Obama is a Democrat, and as should be self-evident to anyone who listens to Bob for any period of time: Democrats are bad. Oh, and if Obama wins, you can count on four long years of attacks on President Obama. Unless, of course, God is merciful and Bob's shows are finally canceled.

As we've said on this blog countless times before: Bob is simply a shill for the GOP. He may profess to be a Christian, but he certainly doesn't speak for all Christians. He says he is "pro-life", but supports a war that has killed over 4,100 U.S. service men and women and tens of thousands of Iraqis. He says he employs "logic and intellectual reasoning", but, as we've shown so many times, Bob really just trades in lies and deception.

Bob Lies About Barack Obama

I'm starting to think that Bob can't present any story without working a lie into the narrative. Even in situations where a lie isn't needed, Bob flops one down anyway.

Today Bob brought up Barack Obama's voting record in the Illinois Senate concerning a piece of legislation known as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act." Here's what Bob said:

There were only two senators in the entire Illinois State Senate. Only two senators that were so brazen that they actually voted against that. They voted that that baby has to be left there to die! Writhing in pain to die! Only two senators were so cold hearted that they voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. One of those two senators was, you guessed it, Barack Obama.

Wow, Obama is quite the monster! That legislation must have just soared through the Illinois General Assembly on the first pass. After all, only two senators voted against it!

Well, it turns out that Bob is lying. Actually, three different versions of this bill came up while Obama was an Illinois State Senator. (If there was overwhelming support for this bill, why did it have to come up three different times?) The first was Senate Bill 1095 in 2001. The vote was 34 Yes, 5 No, and 15 Present, with Obama voting "present." The next version was Senate Bill 1662 in 2002. The vote here was 30 Yes, 12 No, and 10 Present, with Obama voting "no." Finally, a third version came up as Senate Bill 1082 in 2003. This one never got out of committee.

So you see, there is no "brazen" pair of senators who voted to kill babies like Bob implied. In fact, this bill apparently got worse as it was revised! Of course, every version of this bill was simply another anti-choice measure to a non-existent problem.

For a guy who wants the Ten Commandments displayed outside city buildings, I honestly can't understand why Bob has so much trouble obeying God's Commandment against lying.

--Updated on 6/18/2008 to fix the link and expand Bob's quote

Another Unhinged Fact-free Dutko Moment

As long-time listeners of Bob realize, he often goes on rambling, nonsensical tirades, especially when discussing the things he doesn't like: Democrats, atheists, gays, etc. Here's a little sample from one of Friday's outbursts:

But I can tell you, as a proud American, if I have a terrorist on one side and a U.S. General on the other side, and I don't know which one's telling the truth, my default is to give the benefit of the doubt to the United States military and the general. That is my default position. But it seems like the default position of many on the left in this country is to give the benefit of doubt to the terrorists. And so since we see that, already, commonly, from the left in this country and the flag burners and everyone else, is it really that much of a stretch that the most liberal senator in the United States Senate, that's right, officially the most liberal senator according to the actual voting records of the senators, the number one most liberal senator, Barack Obama, when he runs for President, if he represents the most liberal left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party, is it really that much of a stretch to be suspicious and question whether he may have anti-Americanism running through his veins?

Let's try to unpack this mess.

First, Bob asserts that people on "the left" favor terrorists over the U.S. military and its leaders? But, of course, this characterization of "the left" is yet another straw man/bogey man created by Bob to demonize Democrats. Can Bob name one elected Democrat who favors terrorists over the U.S. military? Of course not.

Next, Barack Obama is not the "most liberal senator," no matter how many times Bob repeats it. The actual voting record proves.

Then, Bob gets ridiculous by saying that it's not a stretch to question Sen. Obama's patriotism because he's a liberal. That's the crux of his "argument."

How can any sane person assert that someone is "anti-American" because his views fall on the left of the political spectrum? Over 3.5 million people in Illinois voted for Sen. Obama in 2004. Are these voters also "anti-American" for voting for this man from the "liberal left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party"? And would somebody please tell me why someone who is "anti-American" would run for President of the United States?! People who don't like America don't run for President; they run airplanes into buildings.

So yes, Bob, to answer your long, rambling question, it definitely is a stretch to question whether someone has "anti-Americanism" running through their veins merely because they're a Democrat. In fact, it's downright asinine and ridiculously insulting.

Liberals are Bad

Last week, Bob came back from vacation and got down to business.

In the first fifteen minutes of his show, he got down to the business of bringing up irrelevant, issues for the purpose of attacking liberals based on the logo of a search engine. He's done this multiple times before.

But first, yesterday was Memorial Day ... Well, enter the search engine 'Google'. (deep sigh) Boy, it's the same thing, Google, y'know year after year. They 'dis' our veterans with their Memorial Day snub.

Stop right there. According to Merriam-Webster, the slang word 'dis' means "to treat with contempt or disrespect; insult". So, Bob is saying that by not changing their logo for Memorial Day, that Google is insulting and treating veterans with contempt. Does this logo from last Veteran's Day look like contempt?
I'm no expert in 'dissing,' but this looks more like honor and praise than insult and contempt. So, Bob is being dishonest.

Bob continued by saying that Google is a bunch of liberals and named a bunch of "lesser" events that Google did change their logo for. Bob ran down this list so you can fully appreciate the horror of the people who run that horrible, horrible search engine.

Bob concluded by saying this isn't about Google at all. It's really about the America-hating liberals in general:

The thing that I look at here, with Google. This isn't necessarily about ooooh, 'look how horrible Google is.' It's a window into liberalism and liberal mindset. I'm telling you, what is it about left wing people that causes them to see, y'know, the Chinese boat festival as 'hey, that's something to celebrate'? But Memorial Day is a time to, 'well, lets just turn off the lights and treat it as business as usual, there's nothing special about that day.' That is beyond me. Why is it that so many liberals tend to think that way. And then, if you dare to question their patriotism or dare to suggest that they're not as supportive of our military as they ought to be, they get all offended, they get indignant, they get all 'how dare you make such a suggestion.' Well, alright. It's what we see. It's what we see.

Let me see if I can get this straight: Google doesn't change their logo for Memorial Day, so therefore, liberals don't think there's anything special about Memorial Day. Furthermore, since Google doesn't change their logo for Memorial Day, it's OK to question the patriotism of liberals and their level of support for the military. That's the gist of Bob's logic, isn't it?

That's just stupid! I can't even start to contemplate all the logical errors that Bob made in reaching his conclusion! Bob is simply being illogical and repeating the same old propaganda: liberals, i.e., Democrats, hate America and are BAD. Voting for them is therefore also BAD. This Google "news" is yet another way to get across this overarching message. Bob simply repeats the "liberals are bad" message over and over in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, people believe him.

By the way, Blogger is owned by Google and Bob uses Blogger to host the notes from his shows. Since Bob is using a Google service to host the notes from his shows, he must not be patriotic and must hate the military. Right?

Former Pastor

Last week, while arguing with a caller, Bob stated that Rev. Jeremiah Wright should not be referred to as the "former" pastor of Sen. Barack Obama.

As usual, this is wrong and an outright lie.

First of all, go ahead and Google "former pastor." You'll get hundreds if not thousands of news stories which all use the term "former pastor" to describe Rev. Wright. Here's one that states that "Obama, 46, has split with his former pastor, denouncing Wright's comments..." Seems pretty clear to me. Obama no longer considers Wright his pastor and is therefore is his former pastor.

But wait! You might point out that Obama still goes to that church, Trinity UCC, where Wright was the pastor. That may be true (although I doubt while being in Washington, D.C. and on the campaign trail, Obama gets back to Trinity a lot). Regardless, Wright is no longer the Pastor at Trinity. He retired earlier this year and gave his last sermon on February.

So exactly where does Bob get off saying that Wright is not Obama's former pastor? Is there some special, secret ritual that Obama must perform for Wright to be granted former pastor status?

Bob just refuses to let go of this "issue" (even though he said he'd be happy to do so weeks ago). Bob wants to firmly affix Wright to Obama in order to provide guilt by association. But people aren't buying this nonsense anymore. A man is not judged by the words of his pastor. He is judged by his own words and his own actions.

Guest Lies about Obama; Bob Agrees

Another day in Dutko land!

Bob had some anti-choice person on who threw out this whopper about Barack Obama:

"A couple of weeks ago, he [Obama] made the comment about those that are 'weak' and 'need religion.'"

Bob agreed along quietly, muttering, "oh, right."

Not true! Barack Obama made no such comment! It's another lie on top of the of the other lies, served up fresh by Bob every day!

Who could believe this statement, anyway?

Obama is a Christian who attends church on a regular basis. In his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he specifically mentioned worshiping an "awesome God." In fact, between him, Clinton, and McCain, I would argue that Obama is the most religious of the three! Why would Obama characterize religious people as "weak," when he himself is religious?!

The stupid burns.

The Washington Times

Those who listen to Bob for any length of time realize that he has several "news" sources that he likes to reference.

These include the far-right websites WorldNetDaily and NewsMax.

Bob also makes frequent reference to stories in The Washington Times which publishes a daily paper version. Now, the Times isn't some ancient newspaper that was founded in the 1800s and just happens to carry a conservative slant. No, it's origin is a lot weirder then that.

The Times was founded in 1982 by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Moon is the leader of the Unification Church, founded in 1952 in South Korea. The Times is a money losing newspaper that requires a daily influx of cash from Moon and the Unification Church. In fact, over $3 billion dollars have been spent by Moon and the Unification church since its founding to keep the up and running. As such, the Times is really nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Unification Church.

Moon is a lunatic. He has described himself as the "Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord," has used a Federal office building for a coronation ceremony, and has claimed that he helped Hitler and Stalin "be reborn as new persons." Moon is also a convicted tax cheat and a money launderer.

It may just be me, but Rev. Moon certainly doesn't sound like a Christian to me. He sounds delusional.

Bob attacks Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, calling them cult organizations. But I've never heard Bob say anything negative about Rev. Moon, the Unification Church, or the Times.

Why?

To do so puts Bob in kind of a sticky situation. Because the Times provides the religious right with all sorts of "news" stories that assist them in delivering the message of extreme social conservatism. Without the Times, Bob loses a source that sounds credible and provides him with an extreme-right Republican point-of-view.

But Bob Dutko is a professed Christian.

So why does he constantly and consistently cite a newspaper that is run by a cult-leader who believes that he is the Messiah?

Bob is Upset!

Today, during the "News" Hour, Bob expressed some frustration about the 2008 Presidential campaign. No, Bob wasn't upset that the lack of discussion on the substantive issues, like the endless war in Iraq, rising gas prices and their effect on consumer prices, or the stagnant job market.

Those are things that Bob would prefer to ignore.

No, Bob was upset that the constant barrage of attacks on Barack Obama are failing to resonate or effect in his campaign for President.

Specifically, Bob is really upset that statements and actions by persons who are not Barack Obama are failing to make Barack Obama look bad. For example, since Obama supporter Larry Lessig presented an off-color video at a 2006 seminar, Bob wants you to conclude that Obama is anti-Christian. This completely ignores the fact that Obama is a Christian. Bob also wants you to think that Obama hates America because he went to Rev. Wright's church and that Obama is a "terrorist" like William Ayers.

So what's Bob's solution to this crisis of people caring about the issues instead of being seduced by smear campaigns? Bob thinks we need to come up with a better nickname for Obama. Really! Take a listen:

Yet again something that will apparently not stick to Barack Obama. I'm telling ya, this guy is Teflon. I'm going to start calling him 'Teflon Barack'. We gotta come up with some kind of a name here. Teflon. I don't know how to take 'Teflon'... In other words, no matter what bad thing he does, says, or associates himself with; doesn't matter; won't stick; just slides right off; everybody keeps worshiping at the feet of Barack Obama. So, I don't know. There's got to be a way to take Teflon and Barack or Obama and merge them together in some way to get that point across. Cause I gotta wonder if anything, anything that this guy does, says, associates with, supports, approves, condones; if ANYTHING will actually stick to him and be considered a negative among the Obama worshipers.

Poor Bob. He sounds absolutely frustrated with the current state of affairs! Maybe he'll come up with a good nickname and he can turn this thing around!

On a slightly different subject, have you noticed how Bob has taken to characterize Obama supporters? He's now calling them "worshipers," as is evidenced by the quote above.

Why?

Because Bob wants you to equate Obama supporters with delusional, personality cult members.

Of course, there's no basis for such a comparison. Just because Obama has positions that are very popular and draws a large number of people to hear him, doesn't mean that Obama's supporters are delusional.

It means they want him to be President.