For those just joining us, this series on Creation versus Evolution started awhile ago (see links at bottom) and is exploring the issue by means of an article published in Scientific American that alleged to provide fifteen arguments against creationism. So far we have evaluated nine of them and found them woefully invalid. If you are going to defend a position, at least have the decency and intellectual honesty to use correct argumentation and solid data. It would be appropriate in this year of Darwin to finish this series, which I will be trying to do in the upcoming months. So, on to argument number 10:

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

Once again, Mr. Rennie has failed to understand his opponent. The above is a subtle but significant misstatement of the creationist position. The issue is not new traits, the issue is new genetic information. His example of antibiotic resistance falls far short of his purpose, for there is no known case in which such resistance has been introduced by new information being added to the genome. In fact, there are several ways where an information loss can confer resistance.

The Hox gene family likewise only shows what happens when an important regulatory gene is mutated to turn on preexisting information at the wrong place. Let me be very blunt here: THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION BEING GENERATED! (Hmm…did I say that loud enough?)

And then we have the amazing claim that natural selection can test for “possible uses” of “non-functional” (i.e., by definition, non-operational, and therefore, useless!) limbs in the wrong place. The irony is apparently lost on Mr. Rennie. If they are “non-functional,” how can they have a “function” in any selection process? Natural selection requires genes to be functional so that maladapted genes can be killed off.

Mr. Rennie’s allegations finally approach a level of sophistication with his last paragraph, but it is sophistication in appearance only. In reality, he relies on the ignorance and willful gullibility of his audience and his case falls apart upon close scrutiny in the light of the facts. The mechanisms he lists, gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, and the like, only provide for an increase in the amount of DNA, not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information. It does not, for example, provide the information necessary to transform the scales of a dinosaur’s skin to feathers for flight.

Polyploidy is found in plants, but not in animals (possibly with rare exceptions), and is the phenomenon of the doubling of all the chromosomes.  The result is an individual which can no longer interbreed with the parent type.  Although this may technically be called a new species, because of the breeding isolation, no new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of existing information.

As for gene duplication, the fact is that duplication of a single chromosome is normally harmful, as in Down’s Syndrome, and insertions are a very efficient way of completely destroying the functionality of existing genes. The gene duplication theory supposedly works as follows: an existing gene gets doubled, and one copy does its normal work while the other copy is redundant and non-expressed.  This lack of expression frees the genetic material to mutate free of selection pressure.  However, such “neutral” mutations are still only acting upon pre-existing genetic material and are powerless to produce genuinely new information.  The theory continues to state that these random changes somehow produce a new function while not being expressed, then this redundant gene miraculously turns on somehow, and thus comes under the selective pressure necessary to fine tune its function. Talk about hand-waving! The whole scenario relies on a chance copying event, only one set of the duplicate genes somehow being switched off, randomly mutated to something approximating a new function, and then being switched on again so natural selection can tune it.  And they say creationists operate by faith?!

Problem: mutations do not just occur in the duplicated gene; they occur throughout the genome. Consequently, all the deleterious mutations have to be eliminated by the death of the unfit.  Mutations in this target duplicate gene will be extremely rare—it might represent only 1 part in 30,000 of the genome of an animal.  The larger the genome, the bigger the problem, for a larger genome can sustain a lower mutation to avoid an error catastrophe (complete removal of the individual from the gene pool = immediate death!). Consequently, one has to wait longer for any mutation, let alone a desirable one, in the desired duplicated gene.  Unfortunately (for the Darwinist) there just has not been enough time for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we see in living things.

Dr. Sarfati continues on this point:

Dawkins and others have recognised that the “information space” possible within just one gene is so huge that random changes without some guiding force could never come up with a new function.  There could never be enough experiments (mutating generations of organisms) to find anything useful by such a process. Note that an average gene of 1,000 base pairs represents 4¹⁰⁰⁰ possibilities — that is 10⁶⁰² (compare this with the number of atoms in the universe estimated at “only” 10⁸⁰).  If every atom in the universe were an experiment every millisecond for the supposed 15 billion years of the universe, this could only try a maximum 10¹⁰⁰ of the possibilities.  So such a “neutral” process cannot find any sequence with specificity (usefulness), even allowing for the fact that there may be more than just one sequence that is functional to some extent.

So Dawkins and company have the same problem as the neutral selection theory advocates.  Increasing knowledge of the molecular basis of biological functions has exploded the known “information space” such that mutations and natural selection, with or without gene duplication, or any other known natural process, cannot account for the irreducibly complex nature of living systems.

Finally, we come to Rennie’s concluding sentence about the globin family of proteins. He states as fact what is, in reality, only an inference based on similarities in structure that have been interpreted under a materialistic paradigm. Questions: is this the only possible interpretation of the data? Can this observation be fit into a creationist model? Answers: No. Yes. Think critically, not emotionally!

In fact, the situation is much worse for the evolutionist. Dr. Sarfati explains:

There is no actual demonstration that hemoglobin (with four polypeptides) evolved from myoglobin (with one polypeptide), or any adequate explanation of how the hypothetical intermediates would have had selective advantages. In fact, it’s far more complicated than Rennie implies. The α- and β-globin chains are encoded on genes on different chromosomes, so they are expressed independently. This expression must be controlled precisely, otherwise various types of a disease called thallassemia results. Also, there is an essential protein called AHSP (Alpha Hemoglobin Stabilizing Protein) which, as the name implies, stabilizes the α-chains, and also brings it to the β-chains. Otherwise the α-chains would precipitate and damage the red blood cells. AHSP is one of many examples of a class of protein called chaperones which govern the folding of other proteins.¹ This is yet another problem for chemical evolutionary theories—how did the first proteins fold correctly without chaperones, and since the chaperones themselves are complex proteins, how did they fold?

In conclusion, a critical analysis of this alleged refutation of creationism once again has been weighed in the balance of reason and found wanting. The impression of refutation is an illusion, based on enough hand waving to confuse the audience into thinking its heard something substantial when in reality the smoke and mirrors are ever present.

¹ Kihm, A. et al., An abundant erythroid protein that stabilizes free α-haemoglobin, Nature 417 (6890):758–763, 13 June 2002; comment by Luzzatto, L. and Notaro, R., Haemoglobin’s chaperone, same issue, pp. 703–705.

First installment

Previous installment

When a right-wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone. These are the instantly ossifying narratives in the Sunday shooting death of Kansas late-term abortionist George Tiller versus the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.

Tiller’s suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, was white, Christian, anti-government, and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruiting center attack, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, was black, a Muslim convert, anti-military, and anti-American. Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking.

President Obama issued a statement condemning “heinous acts of violence” within hours of Tiller’s death. The Justice Department issued its own statement and sent federal marshals to protect abortion clinics. News anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist. An almost gleeful excess of mainstream commentary poured forth on the climates of hate and fear created by conservative talk radio, blogs, and Fox News for reporting Tiller’s activities.

By contrast, President Obama was silent about the military recruiter attacks that left 24-year-old Private William Long dead and 18-year-old Private Quinton Ezeagwula gravely wounded. On Tuesday afternoon – more than 24 hours after the attack on the military recruiting center in Little Rock – President Obama held a press conference to announce his pick for Army Secretary. It would have been exactly the right moment to express condolences for the families of the targeted Army recruiters and to condemn heinous acts of violence against our troops.

But President Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of George Tiller. Obama’s omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security.

Yessiree, now! Since we’ve already rattled cages by admitting to the man-made nature of globaloney warming, following the facts where they lead, let’s further stir the waters by informing you, my dear readers, of our position here regarding the whole abortion issue so recently stirred up by the visit of The One to that bastion of intellectual honesty and moral virtue, Notre Dame.

We are unabashedly pro-choice! [insert gasp! here] That’s right! We firmly believe that a woman should have the choice, indeed, the final voice, in deciding whether or not to let some man impregnate her! Yes, you heard me. Let’s fully empower women with control over their own bodies. After all, it is their body and they “suffer” the most if this deed leads to the biological reality of a new life being formed in their wombs when all they wanted was a good time. So yes, the choice is yours, ladies. You can say “yes” or you can say “no.”

What’s that you say? I’m ignoring the sexual revolution and spoiling your fun? Sorry, but…GROW UP! Not all “progress” is truly progress, and life is not about you having fun! The highest values of civilization have always been those which express self-control and/or sacrifice. God’s revelation in mankind’s heart is sufficient to ensure that such basics are known (cf. John 1:9; Romans 1:20) even if His existence is denied in the ultimate form of subconscious cognitive dissonance. So don’t whine to me about your “fun.”

What’s that you say? What if pregnancy does occur? Well, you made the choice. If you are unprepared for these consequences, well, the choice was yours…then! But, you see, once your egg was fertilized, you have no right to a choice because your body now holds something that is not your body. That’s correct, the child, I repeat, the child developing in your womb is NOT, I repeat, NOT your body! This is a biological fact all the way down to the molecular level. The DNA of this human being, and yes, it is a human being despite what Planned Parenthood might tell you, is distinct from you. Your body is, in fact, going through some incredible molecular gymnastics to avoid recognizing this growing baby as something foreign to be attacked and destroyed by your immune system. Now facts are stubborn, heartless things. They don’t really care how you feel about them. But you are beyond stupid to ignore them.

What’s that you say? What if the woman was raped and really didn’t have a choice? Tell me, what percentage of abortion seekers are actually rape victims? How many rape victims actually get pregnant? What kind of numbers are we talking here? Answer: so miniscule as to render this irrelevant, but let’s assume for argument’s sake that all do. The child did not ask to be conceived in an act of violence, so why should he or she suffer death as a consequence? The child is, in essence, an innocent bystander. The perpetrators of the deed are the ones who should face the music, so to speak. A second wrong does not correct the first wrong.

What’s that you say? You think I’m a hateful bigot for opposing your right? Alas, your liberalism is enlarging the spongiforms in your encephalic matter between your ears! First, you have no such right despite what some fallible men on an alleged Supreme Court may tell you. THE Supreme Court is the one before God Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and His verdict is, “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”  (Genesis 9:6)

Furthermore, hate is an emotion. Facts may stir a variety of emotions, but they are independent thereof, and I am only pointing out the facts. Yes, I disagree and oppose your position, but the fact is, I do not hate you, nor do I advocate acts of violence against you. So, how about if you try to set aside your hate for me expressing an opinion that doesn’t affirm your position, and rise above DH0 (Name-Calling) discourse to at least DH4 (Counterargument)? That way we can have a meaningful conversation.

SIDEBAR TO THE SIDEBAR: Hugh Hewitt made this observation Monday on his radio show. In addition to the assassination of the Dr. Tiller, we had another assassination in the news, that of an Army recruiter in Arkansas. Our President, and virtually every Pro-Life (anti-abortion) organization and multitudes of pro-life blogs quickly, soundly, and appropriately condemned the first. It will be interesting to see how fast our President and the anti-war crowd come out with public condemnation of the latter.

[End of Sidebars]

What’s that you say? You still think you have a choice despite what I say? Well, I agree: after impregnation occurs, your choice is whether or not to keep the baby, hopefully with a support net of some kind from your immediate family, or to put the child up for adoption. Both will require heroic efforts on your part on multiple levels, but the right thing to do is not necessarily the easiest. So actually, yes, you still do have a choice. But the choice to execute that helpless baby by such painful, bloody, and violent means that any liberal would scream torture if it were applied to someone outside the womb, especially if he has already actively tried to kill you and multitudes of your fellow Americans, that choice is one that only a totally deceived, or a totally devoid of moral compass, sorry excuse for a human being would make.

To correct Mother Teresa’s statement, it is not a poverty, it is an atrocity that a child must die so that you can live as you please. That is the height of selfish barbarism.

HT:  Patriot Post for the link and excerpts:

"What a fabulous time to be alive! With Justice Souter's retirement and our delightful new President Obama ready to appoint the replacement, aren't you just giddy at the possibilities? We are going to have a new lawgiver! ... Now some say the job of the justice is to merely interpret the law based on the Constitution, but luckily, Obama isn't one of those narrow-minded Neanderthals who want a law-interpreting robot. ...[H]e wants someone who understands us, cares for us, loves us. Someone who isn't going to worry if what some old text says is true when he (or, preferably, she) knows what's best to make us feel good about ourselves! Know who this made me think of? Mary Poppins -- a magical nanny sent to fulfill all the needs of two deserving children. And aren't we a nation of deserving children looking for someone to take care of us? ... Now, I don't know if that person is really out there and whether she'll just come floating from the sky on her umbrella. But if she does exist, I'm sure Obama will find her. And think of it: Justice Mary Poppins. Someone who doesn't look at a law and see just the strict meaning of its words, but instead sees infinite possibilities. Maybe in a law on tort reform she can find a secret guarantee of laptops for poor kids! Maybe we won't even need to pass legislation for universal health care, because she'll find it within the laws we have, hidden with many clues like in a Dan Brown novel. Who knows what magical wonderment Justice Poppins will find next? And she won't be so narrow-minded as to make decisions based on what she finds only in American law. No, instead she'll borrow law from magical cartoon lands and France. ... Or maybe she will take something from her imagination and make it our reality. ... Now some say the perfect justice should be familiar with the Constitution. That's ridiculous. The job of the Supreme Court is to judge the Constitution and whether it's still relevant to us today. Now, you would get a mistrial if a judge were very familiar with the defendant in a case, which is why the perfect justice -- the Justice Poppins -- should have never seen the Constitution, so as to be unbiased when it's on trial. In fact, maybe she should never read it. Through her empathy and compassion she should know what laws we need. Why would such a magical person let a silly piece of paper stand in the way of that?" --columnist Frank J. Fleming

 

A few quotes to encourage your reading the whole thing:

So far, though, you have not been told what it’s like as a car; as a tool for moving you, your friends and your things from place to place.  So here goes.  It’s terrible.  Biblically terrible.  Possibly the worst new car money can buy.  It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more....

So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23 mph because that’s about the top speed, and you’re thinking things can’t get any worse, and then they do because you run over a small piece of grit.

Because the Honda has two motors, one that runs on petrol and one that runs on batteries, it is more expensive to make than a car that has one.  But since the whole point of this car is that it could be sold for less than Toyota’s Smugmobile, the engineers have plainly peeled the suspension components to the bone.  The result is a ride that beggars belief....

And then we have this gem of logic:

Honda has produced a graph that seems to suggest that making the Insight is only marginally more energy-hungry than making a normal car.  And that the slight difference is more than negated by the resultant fuel savings.

The nickel for the battery has to come from somewhere. Canada, usually.  It has to be shipped to Japan, not on a sailing boat, I presume.  And then it must be converted, not in a tree house, into a battery, and then that battery must be transported, not on an ox cart, to the Insight production plant in Suzuka.  And then the finished car has to be shipped, not by Thor Heyerdahl, to Britain, where it can be transported, not by wind, to the home of a man with a beard who thinks he’s doing the world a favour.

Why doesn’t he just buy a Range Rover, which is made from local components, just down the road?  No, really — weird-beards buy locally produced meat and vegetables for eco-reasons. So why not apply the same logic to cars?

In the final analysis, I couldn't agree more with this conclusion:

The data to which I refer comes from a recently published report from the Heartland Institute here in the Windy City in which several relevant sets of data converge, leading to the above conclusion.

First, there is surprising results of a study of the effect of paint changes on the thermometer shelters, known as Stevenson Screens, used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service (NOAA/NWS) to track changes in the climate of the U.S. From about 1890 to 1979, these weather stations were coated with “whitewash (slaked lime in water), which was a common outdoor coating of that era. When dried, it leaves a pure white coating of calcium carbonate on the wood surface.” Then in 1979, the National Weather Service (NWS), now an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), made a specification change to switch the surface coating from whitewash to semigloss latex paint. So what’s the big deal? Well, latex paints have significantly different infrared properties due to the pigment, titanium dioxide, which differs from the calcium carbonate-based whitewash. The change was made without regard to any possible effect on the temperature monitoring ability of the thermometer shelters. To be honest, this is most likely a lack of critical thinking on the part of the NWS and not part of some conspiracy initiated by Al Gore. Yes, our public school system does churn out some real winners!

At any rate, the aforementioned report did the experiment that should have been done prior to implementing this coating change, and found that, lo and behold, there was a 0.3º F difference in maximum temperature and a 0.8º F difference in minimum temperature between the whitewash and latex-painted screens. So big deal, you say? That would be my response as well, except consider that the concern over anthropogenic global warming was triggered by what these stations reported was an increase of about 1.2º F over the entire twentieth century. Yes, dear readers, one of the key techniques of lying with statistics is to expand or shrink axes as necessary to show the trend you have decided a priori is there. The next time you see one of those globaloney warming plots, look carefully at the y axis for the temperature scale.

Ste-rike one!

The second set of data comes from how data is “adjusted” to “homogenize” the data by comparing to surrounding stations and adjusting the numbers. I know of no justification for such a data transformation. The temperature is what it is, not what you want it to be. Now consider the difference between what NOAA publishes and what NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) publishes after NASA “homogenized” the Lampasas (Texas) USHCN (U.S. Historical Climate Network) station data, shown in the figure below. The revised data (shown in red) are made to appear cooler than the original data (shown in blue) in the past, making the positive slope of the trend in the last century even steeper.

 
Oh, and that upward spike about 2000? The temperature monitoring station was moved to a parking lot of a downtown radio station in violation of NOAA specifications, the third point we will examine in a moment.

 

But it gets even better! As illustrated in the graph below, in simplest terms, Even the NOAA adds a positive bias by its own “adjustment” methodology.  It is important to note that the graph below shows a positive adjustment of 0.5º F from 1940 to 1999.  The generally agreed-upon “global warming signal” is said to be about 1.2º F (0.7ºC) over the last century.[1]  NOAA’s “adjustments,” in other words, account for nearly one-half of the agreed-upon rise in temperature in the twentieth century. Man-made globaloney warming indeed!

Nor is this concern a fabrication of globaloney warming skeptics. Other scientists have published in peer-reviewed journals on this issue.[2]

Ste-rike two!

Which brings us to the third category alluded to above, station location.

The NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center set up the Climate Reference Network (CRN) with the following specifications for the site location of these stations.  According to Section 2.2 of the Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook, “the most desirable local surrounding landscape is a relatively large and flat open area with low local vegetation in order that the sky view is unobstructed in all directions except at the lower angles of altitude above the horizon.”  Five classes of sites – ranging from most reliable to least – are defined by NOAA itself:

Class 1:  Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (less than 19º).  Grass/low vegetation ground cover less than 10 centimeters high.  Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots.  Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away.  No shading for a sun elevation greater than 3 degrees.

Class 2:  Same as Class 1 with the following differences.  Surrounding vegetation less than 25 centimeters.  Artificial heating sources within 30 meters.  No shading for a sun elevation greater than 5º.

Class 3:  (error 1ºC)  Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4:  (error greater than 2ºC)  Artificial heating sources less than 10 meters.

Class 5:  (error greater than 5ºC)  Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such as a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.

The bulk of this current report consists of the results of more than 650 volunteer surveyors registering, and as of February 2009, surveying 865 of the 1,221 USHCN climate-monitoring stations, representing more than 70 percent of the operational climate-monitoring network in the continental United States. Their simple goal was to see what percentage of these climate-monitoring stations were installed per the agency’s own instructions, which would make their temperature readings reliable if followed (i.e., how many fall into Class 1 and 2 above).

The results? In the report’s own words:

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

For verification of these results, pictures of many of these stations are included, some with the infra-red counterpart to make the point:

Ste-rike three! You’re out!

And we haven’t even touched on the major gaps found in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors.

Based on the above, it is not hard for any reasonably intelligent individual to come to the same conclusion as this investigation (emphasis added):

The conclusion is inescapable:  The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century.  Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century.  Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.

And thus I conclude, globaloney warming is, indeed, man-made, in the sense that man has manipulated the data, intentionally or stupidly, you decide, to create the appearance of an upward trend in temperatures. As the above evidence indicates, the corruption of the underlying data falsifies any conclusions based thereon.

Those in the computer sciences are well aware of the meaning of the acronym, G.I.G.O., and this is an outstanding example of what we clearly have here.

Garbage In, Garbage Out!

16. ‘You know, stop lights don’t come any redder than the one you just went through.’

15. ‘Relax, the handcuffs are tight because they’re new. They’ll stretch after you wear them a while.’

14. ‘If you take your hands off the car, I’ll make your birth certificate a worthless document.’

13. ‘If you run, you’ll only go to jail tired.’

12. ‘Can you run faster than 1200 ft/second? Because that’s the speed of the bullet that’ll be chasing you.’

11. ‘You don’t know how fast you were going? I guess that means I can write anything I want on the ticket, huh?’

10. ‘Yes sir, you can talk to the shift supervisor, but I don’t think it will help. Oh, did I mention that I’m the shift supervisor?’

9. ‘Warning! You want a warning? O.K., I’m warning you not to do that again or I’ll give you another ticket.’

8. ‘The answer to this last question will determine whether you are drunk or not. Was Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?’

7. ‘Fair? You want me to be fair? Listen, fair is a place where you go to ride on rides, eat cotton candy and corn dogs and step in elephant poop.’

6. ‘Yeah, we have a quota. Two more tickets and my wife gets a toaster oven.’

5. ‘In God we trust, all others we run through NCIC.’

4. ‘How big were those ‘two beers’ you say you had?’

3. ‘No sir, we don’t have quotas anymore. We used to, but now we’re allowed to write as many tickets as we can.’

2. ‘I’m glad to hear that the Chief (of Police) is a personal friend of yours. So you know someone who can post your bail.’

AND THE WINNER IS…

1. ‘You didn’t think we give pretty women tickets? You’re right, we don’t… Sign here.

“It used to be said that self-preservation is the first law of nature. But much of what has been happening in recent times in the United States, and in Western civilization in general, suggests that survival is taking a back seat to the shibboleths of political correctness. We have already turned loose dozens of captured terrorists, who have resumed their terrorism. Why? Because they have been given 'rights' that exist neither in our laws nor under international law. These are not criminals in our society, entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States. They are not prisoners of war entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. There was a time when people who violated the rules of war were not entitled to turn around and claim the protection of those rules. ... Bending over backward is a very bad position from which to try to defend yourself. Nobody in those days confused bending over backward with 'the rule of law,' as Barack Obama did recently. Bending over backward is the antithesis of the rule of law. It is depriving the people of the protection of their laws, in order to pander to mushy notions among the elite. Even under the Geneva Convention, enemy soldiers have no right to be turned loose before the war is over. Terrorists -- 'militants' or 'insurgents' for those of you who are squeamish -- have declared open-ended war against America. It is open-ended in time and open-ended in methods, including beheadings of innocent civilians. President Obama can ban the phrase 'war on terror' but he cannot ban the terrorists' war on us. That war continues, so there is no reason to turn terrorists loose before it ends. They chose to make it that kind of war. We don't need to risk American lives to prove that we are nicer than they are.”

Read the whole thing.

What's the one overriding element of the human world that prevents the real catches in the universe of males from being seduced, exploited, and brainwashed into acting out sexually with other men?

A gorgeous woman.

But even IF Carrie had shown her nether region, the homosexuals that are now accusing her of being a hypocrite would STILL not accuse her of immorality.

And that is a striking difference[between true Christians and the homosexual activist community].

Homosexual activists never want to discuss immorality. In fact the most immoral thing they can ever accuse someone else of is being a hypocrite.

Let me be clear, they will never accuse adulterers of adultery, porn addicts of pornography, or even adult males who sex up minors of being pedophiles or statutory rapists.

And why not?

Because they know as clearly as they breathe and walk, that the behavior they engage in IS immoral.

So morality must NOT be brought up...

Only hypocrisy...

The truth is Carrie's beauty is evident, abundant, and her worldview represents the majority of Americans--not to mention Californians specifically--who she was expected to represent in winning her coveted title.

Nothing intimidates homosexual queens more than statuesque, beautiful, and gracious women.

A doctor struck up a conversation with a hard-working 75 year old rancher while suturing a mean cut on the old man's leathery hand. Eventually the topic got around to Obama.

The old rancher said, "Well, you know, Obama is a 'post turtle.'"

Unfamiliar with the term, the doctor asked him what he meant.

The old rancher replied, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle.'"

 

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued:

 

"You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of complete moron put him up there to begin with."