Did the Human Genome Project Confirm Evolution?

Have you been told that evolution is an undeniable fact? That our very own DNA is the confirmation? That human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA which proves that chimpanzees are the “missing link?” That, in light of these “facts” a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is naive? Secular science would have you believe that evolution is not just a theory, but fact- that studies on genetics and DNA (based on the human genome project) have “debunked” the Biblical narrative. Making Bible believers feel like backwards, uneducated, dummies for taking the word of God literally is in fact, the favorite age old tactic that secular science employs to make us question our faith and plant little seeds of doubt that undermine the reliability of the Bible. This is the favorite tactic because it works so fabulously.  So, we tend to accept all scientific “proof” as fact and work furiously to compromise the Bible to “make it fit” current scientific claims.

Carefully selected and isolated findings of the human genome project such as the similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA are often touted as the nail in the coffin of literal Biblical creation as well as the “undeniable” evidence of evolution. This is huge for evolutionists because of the disconcerting lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record- as in not even one that hasn’t been outed as a hoax. In actuality the human genome project raised more questions than it answered. But did the project really provide monumental evidence for evolution or just bring to light how little is actually known about our origins? Before we as Christians rush to compromise the very foundational account of creation in the Bible so as not to appear “foolish” in the eyes of the secular scientific community, maybe we should actually take a look at the evidence.

Ever since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize in physiology in 1962 for their discovery of the molecular structure of DNA, scientists have been comparing the DNA of animals and humans in an effort to “prove” the theory of evolution. When it was discovered that human and chimpanzee DNA are 98.5% identical, indeed the entire secular community did a victory dance. In 2000, scientists announced that they had deciphered the genetic code contained in the entire human genome! No doubt, the assumption was that this new information would strengthen the link between humans and chimps. Instead, in the years since all the results of the Human Genome Project were published, scientists have discovered that comparing the genetics of primates and humans is a lot more complicated than just “homologies” or similarities in DNA.

As it turns out, only about 1.5% of the human genome consists of genes. The rest consists of non-coding information sometimes referred to as “junk DNA”. Scientists are just now trying to figure out the function of this “junk DNA”. More on that in a moment. Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub note in their article for Apologetics Press, “These finding indicate that even if all of the human genes were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA still could be 98.5 percent similar if the ‘junk’ DNA of humans and chimpanzees were identical.”

For a little more perspective Thompson and Harrub quote Jonathan Marks (dept. of anthropology, UC Berkely) as he points out the problem with the line of thinking that revolves around DNA similarities, “Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases- A,G,C, and T- only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical.” As Thompson and Harub put it, “Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are ‘one quarter human’?”

Need even more perspective? Thompson and Harrub write, “The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) has also been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm. Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry.”

Pictured above is a nematode- see any family resemblance? If you’re beginning to think it’s a little premature to toss out a literal interpretation of Genesis’ creation of man, I’m right there with you.

In light of the human genome project, it would seem that the key components to what make a human a human, and what make a chimp a chimp are far more different than what we have been led to believe. Thompson and Harrub explain just how large the seemingly minuscule 1-2% divergence between man and chimp actually is, “The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome).”

The human genome project has demonstrated that similar organs between species, are not all created from identical genetic code as one might assume. Instead, completely different genetic coding can and does produce similar organs. This fact is nothing short of devastating for evolutionists who are attempting to connect linear evolutionary dots based on similar characteristics between species. Biologist John Randall admits, “The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals…Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down.”

Now, imagine for a moment, the audacity of a group of people who declare the results of the human genome project to be undeniable evidence that the Biblical account of creation has been “debunked” when the very same project brought to light the fact that scientists DO NOT understand the function of a whopping majority (over 98%) of the human genome. These scientists actually referred to it as “junk DNA”. Now that scientists have had several years to look into the matter they are realizing that this “junk DNA” actually does have a purpose and that the body’s “building plans” are a lot more complicated than they originally thought. (Shocking, I know…)

Ewan Birney of European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge wrote an article for Scientific American entitled “Hidden Treasures in Junk DNA”. Birney writes, “I get this strong feeling that previously I was ignorant of my own ignorance, and now I understand my ignorance. It’s slightly depressing as you realize how ignorant you are. But this is progress. The first step in understanding these things is having a list of things that one has to understand, and that’s what we’ve got here.” Now that’s certainly a refreshing admission! And much closer to the reality than the idea that science “has it all figured out”.

According to the same article in Scientific American, Birney and his team of researchers (called the ENCODE project) have “produced a stunning inventory of previously hidden switches, signals, and sign posts embedded like runes throughout the entire length of human DNA.” It has been observed that anywhere from 9% all the way up to as much as 80% (well that’s quite the range- again confirmation that they’re still in the “who really knows” phase of research) of this “junk DNA” appears to serve a regulatory function in the gene.

Even more disturbing (for evolutionists) is that this regulatory DNA seems to follow completely different “evolutionary rules” than coding DNA. Apparently it “turns over much faster” than coding DNA- in other words, more rapid evolution. This should be interesting for them to work through since a hallmark of  evolution  is the billions of years required to effect change. When refuting evidence that man is merely 6,000-7,000 old instead of the accepted “requirement” of 200,000 years- one of evolution’s “go to” rebuttals is that the rate of mutation that would be required to achieve our current state of variation (varying racial characteristics, etc) in such a short period of time would “mutate us out of existence”. So yes, this explanation should be interesting to hear.

Is it just me, or did the revelations of the human genome project actually make the theory of evolution look even more ridiculous considering the exposed layers of unfathomable complexity revealed in DNA- the “Book of Life”? The human genome project is more like a neon flashing sign that reads “Creator Required”. Unless, that is,  you are an individual who refuses to even consider that possibility.

Sources:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=203&topic=312

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1038

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Pro-Choice Christian or Political Moderate, Please Stop Killing in the Name of Kindness

I could try to sit here and think of ways to word this less offensively, but instead I’m just going to tell it like it is. There is nothing that gets me more riled up than to a hear a person, Christian or not, who I KNOW is a genuinely caring and loving individual tell me they are pro-choice- not because they support abortion on demand, but rather because they want to protect the right of individuals who are victims of rape or incest, or those whose lives may be endangered by the child they are carrying, or those whose unborn child may or may not have a genetic abnormality, to have an abortion.

Before we go any further let’s get some data to roughly ascertain the numbers of those women who get abortions based on those criteria we listed above. There are only two sources that provide nationwide abortion statistics- the Guttmacher Institute privately and the CDC publicly. The CDC can no longer get accurate numbers because a few states have not been publicly releasing their abortion totals and the Guttmacher Institute is obviously associated with Planned Parenthood, but even using figures that are most likely problematic, we can get a working estimate. The numbers, if anything would be skewed in favor of the Pro-Choice movement. According to state data, 906,000 abortions took place in 2015. In 2013, in New York City, approximately 37.4% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) were aborted. (CDC) A 2004 Guttmacher anonymous survey asking women to provide the reason for their abortions yielded these results:

    • less than .5% were victim’s of rape
    • 3% cited fetal health problems
    • 4% cited physical health problems
    • 4% said it would interfere with their education or career
    • 7% said they were not mature enough to raise a child
    • 8% didn’t want to be a single mother
    • 19% were just done having children
    • 23% said they couldn’t afford a baby
    • 25% said they were not ready for a child
    • 6% checks that good old “other” box

First, I’d just like to point out that a whopping 92% of these “issues” would have been resolved by giving the child a chance and blessing a family who wishes to adopt. If only the mother was willing to “inconvenience” herself by enduring the pregnancy instead of sentencing the child to death. So, we are left with less than 8% who you may argue “need” champions. If we apply these percentages to the overall number of abortions ( I know we can’t “technically” do that because the numbers are from different years, but its close enough to get a good mental picture of what we’re talking about here) you will find that to be the champion of 72,480 women, you have been a party to the murder of 833,520 innocent lives. How’s that for perspective?

It doesn’t upset me that they believe those women need champions and that they want to stand for them. It upsets me that they have bought into the lie that in order to protect that miniscule part of the population, they MUST join with the progressive movement which lobbies for a woman’s “right” to abortion on demand for any reason- that reason usually being rooted in convenience and selfishness. Talk about a deal with the devil. The abortion on demand type of “progressives” are distasteful enough, but of even more cause for alarm are the “people behind the curtain” who take advantage of these “useful idiots” (because that’s how THEY see you, not how I see you- I told you I’m not pulling any punches) to further their horrific agendas of the age old practice of eugenics or the intellectual penchant for population control.

By now, if you identify with this group I am describing, you’re probably seething. To that I say I’m sorry- but sometimes being a real friend means you have to be willing to tell the truth even when you may anger some people in the process. I intend today to be that friend. I care enough about you, about the millions of babies who have been murdered for convenience, and about the under- privileged populations both in the US and abroad that are suffering due to the politically correct “re-branding” of evil agendas into the more palatable terms “pro-choice”, “human rights”, and “humanitarianism”, to tell you the TRUTH. Let me explain from the beginning, because that’s always the best place to start.

The movement to legalize abortion has its roots in the scarcely mentioned eugenics movement of the early 20th century which in turn has inspired the present day population control agenda. (If you think population control isn’t an actual “thing”, you might want to start paying attention to what Bill Gates credits for driving his humanitarian efforts- spoiler alert- it’s population control)What is eugenics? The eugenic“science” was introduced by Francis Galton (a cousin of none other than Charles Darwin) who was drawing from the ideas of “breeding” humans put forth by none other than Plato himself in his book, Republic. Edwin Black writing for the History News Network defines it as, “…the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed “unfit” preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype.” The Nordic stereotype being tall, blonde, blue-eyed- (sound familiar yet?) Black continues, “Elements of the philosophy were enshrined in national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions enacted in 27 states…Ultimately eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in “colonies”, and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning.” While early eugenics did have quite an extreme racist component, the broader definition of “unfit” also included individuals who were a “drain” on society- criminals, the poor, addicts, individuals with “unsavory” characteristics such as “loose” women or other traits considered immoral.

Who was “on board” with this eugenics philosophy? Early financiers of the movement were the Carnegie Institute, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman family. Some of America’s most prestigious scientists from Stamford, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale espoused the philosophy. Socialists like George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb advocated it. The US Supreme Court endorsed it. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his 1927 decision wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for a crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Most surprising for some however, is none other than Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger- who is elevated to nothing less than sainthood by the proponents of the pro-choice movement. Though Sanger herself denounced abortion (odd considering how her life’s work is presented to our society today), she devoted her life to ushering in a “superior” race through her fight to legalize birth control.

Legalizing birth control seems a laudable effort until you read Sanger’s own words regarding her vision for society and who she wanted to “eradicate”. Don’t take my word for it; I’ll let Margaret speak for herself:

“Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly…Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born.”

“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”

“Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.”

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying…demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism…[Philathropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of the unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.”

Let me just state it plainly for those who may not be “picking up” what Sanger is “putting down” here: If you identify as a member of society who endeavors to help those less fortunate than yourself through social programs or charity, Margaret thinks you are a sentimental fool and compares you to a deadly societal disease. Feeling the love yet? Most of these quotes come from her books The Pivot of Civilization and A Plan for Peace. You can check out these books if you’d like to read up on more of Margaret’s “pearls of wisdom”. In 1921 Sanger founded The American Birth Control League. Sanger actually tried to merge her organization with the American Eugenics Association twice, unsuccessfully. In 1946, the Birth Control League became The Planned Parenthood Federation of America. According to Mark Crutcher’s Maafa 21 documentary, “Planned Parenthood was an integral part of the sterilization boards that operated in more than 30 states.”

One fellow who was taking notice of this new American philosophy was none other than Hitler himself. Americans were more than happy to oblige. Edwin Black reports, “More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany’s eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000- almost $4 million in 21st-Century money- to hundreds of German researchers.

Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf, “There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.”

I’m guessing this lady isn’t aware that the founders of her ideology were the inspiration for actual Nazis.

As much as Margaret admired the eugenics ideology and wanted to make her own contribution in the form of her legalization of birth control, many of the popular socialist eugenicists of her time couldn’t initially see Margaret’s efforts as valuable. Leonard points out in his book, “Many eugenicists feared unregulated birth control was dysgenic in its effects, because, as a progressive socialist Charles Horton Cooley warned, the ‘intelligent classes’ used it, and the inferior classes did not.” However, Margaret must have persuaded him, because Cooley notes later, “If the state delivered birth control to the inferior classes, then contraception could indeed work eugenically.” And tadaa! Just like that eugenics put on a “humanitarian” mask that the progressive movement now fights for under the re-branded cause of “human rights” to government funded birth control and now abortion. Are you feeling manipulated yet?

No? Just wait…

The problem that eugenicists faced at this point in history was the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public still viewed abortion as a practice that should only be used in the most dire of circumstances. For instance if the life of the mother was in danger. Many people believed at that time also that victims of rape or incest for example should be given the option to end the pregnancy. (We were so sweet and innocent back then.) So, in order for abortion to become an effective means of eradicating “undesirable” individuals and reducing the population of “societal drains”, they faced the monumental task of changing the societal view of the value of life, eroding maternal instinct, instilling a false “right” to idolize oneself by murdering the child you have created if said child’s existence will be “inconvenient” for you, as well as the false “right” to a promiscuous lifestyle in which you are able to “erase” the “unfortunate consequences” of said promiscuity.

Mary Meehan explains the disagreements that existed in the eugenics community regarding whether to take a more radical approach to repealing the anti-abortion laws vs more of an evolution, so to speak. “In 1963 Prof. Hardin, an environmentalist who was also an ardent population controller and a member of the American Eugenics Society, made a radical argument for repealing anti-abortion laws. In an approach that would be copied by many others, he put his population and eugenics concerns in the background and based his argument mainly on the welfare and rights of women.” (Time out! Please tell me you are drawing the obvious parallels to our current day!) Meehan continues, “Dr. Alan Guttmacher, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wrote Hardin that anti-abortion laws could be changed ‘inch by inch and foot by foot, but not a mile at a time.’ Later Guttmacher told another correspondent that ‘I am in favor of abortion on demand, but feel from the practical point of view that such a social revolution should evolve by stages.’”

At this stage, the “people behind the curtain” were acutely aware that they needed a cover of legitimacy with which to veil their efforts. One of many organizations that lent this legitimacy was the ACLU. Mary Meehan writes a section specifically regarding the ACLU in her book Prolife Feminism:Yesterday and Today. The ACLU handled Roe v Wade’s companion case, Doe v Bolton, in which basically resulted abortion on demand. Of course, the ACLU represented the legalization of abortion behind for “humanitarian” reasons. But were they aware of the agendas behind the push for legalized abortion. Mary Meehan writes, “Aryah Neier, ACLU executive director from 1970-78 later referred to some African Americans’ feeling that there were some whites who were eager to eliminate or limit the number of welfare mother babies out of anti-black feeling and that’s why they were supporting abortion.” Neier also added, “There was a foundation in Pittsburg that was willing to provide support for litigation efforts on behalf of abortion because of that feeling.” When Neir was asked if he was bothered by accepting that kind of money he responded, “I don’t regard it as dirty money…If you tried to go back and find out where people made their money and what all their beliefs are…you’d go crazy.” Apparently, Neier had no problem being a “useful idiot”.

Just in case you need someone to be candid about what the “people behind the curtain” think about citizens (their “useful idiots”)who are pushing their doctored up eugenics and population control agenda, Meehan clears that up with a quote from C. Lalor Burdick, a foundation executive and eugenicist. “ [Burdick] had also complained that Americans ‘seem to be deifying our scruffy and unfit by putting them in temples (welfare housing)’ and ‘recreating some ancient fertility cult where we provide breeding pads and free sustenance for the proliferation of a kind of people that hate us and would destroy us, if they could.’…Lalor also remarked, ‘ The “maternal impulse” is partly bunk. De-bunking of this might get some females off their fat duffs and into useful endeavor.’” If you’re currently “off your fat duff” (as Burdick so colorfully expressed it) furthering this abortion on demand cause- please feel free to be offended. As an interesting side note, Lalor Foundation is still up and running today. This is the mission statement front and center on their website: “The Anna Lalor Burdick Program focuses on young women who have inadequate access to information regarding reproductive health, including the subjects of contraception and pregnancy termination, and as such may be particularly lacking options in their lives.”

So, to sum up- again- these people are NOT humanitarian- they have an undeniable ulterior motive which is veiled behind the faux legitimacy of “helping our fellow man.” Sadly enough they have successfully “debunked” the existence of a “maternal impulse” in a wide swathe of our population, which is now represented by the self idolizing abortion on demand crowd. So, next time you feel like toting around a pro-choice sign in an organized march, please be acutely aware of the opinion the march financiers hold of you. While you’re at it, if you are in said march, yet you don’t believe in abortion on demand- you might consider disassociating yourself with these people and putting together your own cause to march in instead of borrowing one that doesn’t fit.

If you would like a smack you in the face insight into whose cause you are aligning yourself with, please take the time to visit this blog and be horrified as she admits the eugenic roots of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger (and claims they no longer describe her movement) and then goes on to detail how she fancies herself a “civic-minded Lesbian selflessly investing her time and energy helping poor straight women escape the unfortunate consequences of their sex lives.” I suppose the “unfortunate consequences” would be those pesky babies they need to murder so as not to be inconvenienced. She goes on to describe a circumstance in which no one should be expected to follow through with a pregnancy. “There were queer couples who planned to have children together, inseminated, and then broke up, leaving one partner to choose between abortion and single parenthood.” Upon reading this quote all I could think of was this picture in a  recent pregnancy annoucement that embodies the struggle of those that desperately want children:

If this woman’s ideology is not the definition of depravity and the fruition of the break down in maternal instinct and self responsibility the eugenicists sought to usher in, I don’t know what is. We are not talking about a calling off a pet adoption people! This is a human life that you have created and are responsible for! Pro-choicer, is THIS who you want to align yourself with?!?

Some of you may be thinking something along the lines of, “This doesn’t even apply to the progressive ideology anymore”, or “This is ancient history, these ulterior motives no longer exist.” For you, I submit this letter written to Bill Clinton from James R. Weddington (one of the co-counsels for Roe v. Wade) just prior to Clinton’s first term as president. (If you would like to hear the heart wrenching testimony of Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, who was manipulated into playing a false role in order to stir up public sympathies based on false information in order to legalize abortion, please watch the video at the end of this article.) Here’s the letter Weddington wrote advocating the elimination of the socially dependent class through birth control and abortion:

“But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some, sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies. There. I’ve said it…Condoms alone won’t do it. Depo-Provera, Norplant and the new birth control injection being developed in India are not a complete answer…No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions…RUA 486 (he’s referring to the morning after pill) and conventional abortions. Even if we make birth control as ubiquitous as sneakers and junk food, there will still be unplanned pregnancies. There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery…and then add 30 million unwanted babies into the scenario.”

We have no idea if Bill Clinton ever responded, but do we need to? His actions are clear enough. In 1996, Clinton vetoed a bill to ban partial birth abortions. Hillary ran a significant part of her campaign last year on the woman’s “right to choose” and a woman’s “right” to be funded by the government in her “health care” choices.

Would you like, perhaps, some more direct governmental proof? In 1990, the Kissinger Report, which was a top secret document compiled by the US Security Council with the subject of “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests”, was declassified and moved to the U.S. National Archives. It is a document that details the US policy on population control. (I guess that pretty much proves we do indeed have a population control policy, so that notion can’t be relegated to conspiracy theory.) Here are some of the elements of the implementation of the population control efforts stated in the report:

    • the legalization of abortion
    • financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion and sterilization and contraception-use rates
    • indoctrination of children
    • mandatory population control and coercion of other forms, such as holding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

The report also details that the US should disguise its population control activities in foreign countries so as to avoid charges of “imperialism” by using the UN and non governmental organizations. Not suprisingly, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation is specifically named, along with the Pathfinder Fund, and others. You might also be surprised to learn that the US, for many years, has funded the United Nations Population Control Fund, which has donated over $100 million to China’s population control program and even recognized China with an award for their outstanding population control program, which many of us know have been the catalyst for innumerable human rights violations.

But hey! That was the 70’s right? We already know that Planned Parenthood functions primarily as an abortion on demand provider and as a financier of the abortion on demand movement. Let’s take a look at the top funders of Planned Parenthood and compare them to the original eugenics supporters. Also notice the language (re-branding) used in describing these “humanitarian” causes.

The largest donor is the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (named for Warren Buffet’s late wife) to the tune of $230,915,706. However, Buffet makes no bones about the fact that he doesn’t want his donations publicized and the media apparently respect his wishes for the most part. Planned Parenthood received the biggest check from Buffet, but according to the Media Research Center, Buffet also gives hefty donations to Marie Stopes International ($211 million), National Abortion Federation ($85 million), DKT International ($78 million- DKT also has ties to funding India’s human rights atrocity referred to as a “family planning program”), Engender Health ($32 million), Guttmacher Institute ($29 million), and NARAL ($24 million).

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation comes in next at $22,827,000. According to Aly Nielson’s article, “The foundations Planned Parenthood support is part of Hewlett’s larger Global Development and Population Program, which claims to ‘expand women’s choices’ about whether to have children.”

Next, we have George Soros’ Open Society Institute with $18,350,000. According to Nielson, this grant was “specifically to build centers in the ‘south and southeast’ regions of the U.S.” I’d hate to sell George short, so I’ll go ahead and make mention here that Soros has indeed been confirmed to have had funding ties to more than 50 partners of the Women’s March on Washington. He also has his hands in MoveOn.org and the National Action Network which are very politically left organizations that encourage activism for liberal causes. You see, Soros has a very lucrative side hobby of manipulating currency, which unfortunately results in destroying the economies of the countries whose currency he manipulates. He bets on the devaluation of a currency in the market, then actively promotes causes that destroy the economies of these countries- very successfully I might add. Currently he is heavily vested in gold and calling for the devaluation of the US dollar, which explains his efforts to align with our nation destroying causes. So, if you find yourself agreeing with Soros’ pet projects, you may need to reevaluate your stances. Just a thought…

Also of note is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation coming in at $14,521,748. The Gates’ are also involved in sponsoring each International Conference on Family Planning.

While we’re on the topic of Bill and Melinda Gates, it bears mentioning that a while back, the Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg all met in New York to discuss how they might “harness their interests” into a common cause. I didn’t link a source because this meeting was widely reported and you can google it and take your pick. The conservative sources describe this meeting as an apocalyptic omen, while the liberal sources bill it more as a “humanitarian meeting of the minds”. According to reports, these “great humanitarians” decided that population control is our number one issue, taking their cue from Bill Gates who is reported to have “outlined an ambitious plan to cap global population at 8.3 billion.” Hmm.

How does Gates propose to do this you might wonder? Through his “humanitarian” efforts of course. James Tillman reports Gates’ comments while speaking at a conference regarding how humans can reduce our CO2 emissions, “ Because the quantity of CO2 emitted is related to the human population, Gates briefly mentioned means to reduce the projected world population, including ‘reproductive health services’- abortion and contraception- as well as vaccines.”

We’ve already belabored the “reproductive health scam” point, so let me touch on Gates’ vaccination pet project. Gates likes to spend huge sums of money providing vaccinations in poverty stricken countries in an effort to improve the health and mortality rates in these countries. Gates has explained the logical relationship between vaccinations, healthier populations, and population control in this way:

As Gates sees it, the main reason parents in these impoverished countries have multiple children, is because they know only one or two may actually make it to adulthood. So, by improving the health and mortality of these populations, these parents can begin to decrease the number of children they have, thereby reducing the overall population. Makes sense, right?

So how have the U.S.’ and Gates’ humanitarian vaccination efforts panned out? Quite scandalously. Tillman reports, “Previous vaccination programs have been shown to have been covertly used to sterilize women. In 1995, the Supreme Court of the Philipines found that vaccines used in a UNICEF anti-tetanus vaccination program contained B-hCG, which when given in a vaccine , permanently destroys a woman’s ability to sustain a pregnancy. Approximately 3 million women had already been given the vaccine.” Was this an isolated occurrence? Hardly. B-hCG “contaminated” vaccines were found in at least four other developing countries. Crazy coincidence?

In 2004, a UNICEF campaign to administer polio vaccines to Nigerian children came under fire for being a sterilization front. A pharmaceutical scientist from the University of Zaria took samples of the vaccines back to India for analysis and found the vaccines were severely “contaminated”. “Some of the things we discovered in the vaccines are harmful, toxic; some have direct effects on the human reproductive system,” says Dr. Haruna Kaita. He continues, “I and some of the other professional colleagues who are Indians who were in the Lab could not believe the discovery.” Tillman reports that, “A Nigerian government doctor tried to persuade Dr. Kaita that the contaminants would have no bearing on human reproduction.” Dr. Kaita elaborates, “I was surprised when one of the federal government doctors was telling me something contrary to what I have learned, studied, taught and is the common knowledge of all pharmaceutical scientists- that estrogen cannot induce an anti-fertility response in humans. I found that argument very disturbing and ridiculous.”

This doesn’t even count the large number of children that have incurred vaccine injury due to the polio vaccinations that Gates and the US are NOT helping. Just collateral damage I suppose.

I seem to remember reading something about these tactics in the Kissinger Report. Another horrific and current example of the US funding “family planning” in foreign countries are the atrocities being committed in India’s sterilization program. India’s program has been described as an unimaginable “assembly line” type scenario in which sterilizations are performed in “grotesquely unsanitary conditions”. These women are paid the equivalent of about $10 USD to be sterilized; some say they are sterilized without giving consent. One health official reports that “…83 women underwent surgical sterilization at the hands of one doctor in just a few hours.” Many women have died and even more have been seriously injured. Unfortunately, our very own tax dollars have gone to support this horror, as India receives “family planning aid” from USAID. Bill and Melinda Gates also privately donate to India’s “family planning” programs.

Now, with ALL of this information presented- I honestly ask: How can ANY individual who does not advocate abortion on demand, support in any way, shape, or form, the current progressive Pro-Choice movement? How? On what grounds do you justify your support? How do you rationalize these facts away? If you desire to be the champion for what is a miniscule portion of the population (regardless of what the pro-choice movement will try to sell you) who YOU feel deserve the right to end a pregnancy and you do so by supporting the progressive Pro-Choice movement, then I say to you: You are championing the few by standing on the shoulders of the millions of babies who have died and will die as a result of legalized abortion on demand. Abortion on demand is rooted in the age old effort to “breed a superior race” as well as the more modern effort to curb the population by ridding the world of “societal drains”, and supported by a depraved faction of our population who demand the “right” to murder the “unfortunate consequences” of their irresponsible sexual lifestyles. You stand on the shoulders of the millions of women who have been sterilized against their will, who have died or have suffered incomprehensible misery and injury due to coerced sterilization efforts supported by our tax dollars and encouraged by our government in our own country and abroad. You may continue your support if you wish, but if you have read this evidence, you can no longer claim innocent ignorance. OR, you may break away from a progressive movement than never represented you anyway, and form your own movement. A movement not yet named that would stand for the rights of the few and not be stained by the blood of the innocent. Stop killing in the name of kindness.

7 powerful quotes from ‘Jane Roe’ of Roe v. Wade

Sources:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/evangelical-history/2017/01/27/the-historic-connection-between-eugenics-and-abortion/

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/star-tribune_eugenics.html

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/evangelical-history/2017/01/27/the-historic-connection-between-eugenics-and-abortion/

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mark-crutcher/eugenics-real-reason-legalized-abortion

http://www.meehanreports.com/how-led.html

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/moderneugenics.html

Letter to Bill Clinton link:

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/weddington.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=_ACd-_bMgmEC&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=aclu+ties+to+eugenics&source=bl&ots=38_AfLd5Km&sig=KRXK7LBnatNNJ3f-mEfR3EtsfCE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz-sG-15fSAhUl6YMKHeQtBG8Q6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q=aclu%20ties%20to%20eugenics&f=false

http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics

http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/01/23/political-agitator-globalist-george-soros-linked-to-over-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/alatheia-larsen/2015/07/31/planned-parenthoods-biggest-donors-gave-374-million-four-years

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gates-foundation-explains-bill-gates-re-vaccines-reducing-population

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/unicef-nigerian-polio-vaccine-contaminated-with-sterilizing-agents-scientis

Link to Kissinger Report:

http://www.hli.org/resources/exposing-the-global-population-control/?gclid=CjwKEAiA_p_FBRCRi_mW5Myl4S0SJAAkezZrYXVpgkvEOpSmWG4bM9GgAoxf1V7UrgqwQJk3SUDVqhoC_PDw_wcB

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/13/united-states-is-funding-sterilization-camps-targeting-women-in-india/

https://www.mrc.org/articles/warren-buffett-billion-dollar-king-abortion

Christians, We Have To Stop Confusing the Role of the Government When it Comes to Immigration

 It doesn’t surprise or bother me at all when people who aren’t Christian call my anti open borders, pro extreme vetting, anti illegal immigration views hypocritical while I listen to them parrot a list of verses from the Bible- my Guidebook to life. They usually pick verses such as Leviticus 19:34:“The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.”, or Ezekiel 16:49:“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”, or best of all, Matthew 25:34-46:“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Scriptures from a Book that, by the way, they believe is a backwards, bigoted, genocide endorsing, archaic collection of fairy tales. No- their opinion doesn’t affect me. Why would I be offended? They are basing arguments on a Book they have no understanding of.

I’ll tell you what really DOES bother me though. When some of my fellow Christians misuse these same verses to accuse me of not portraying the “love” of Jesus. It concerns me, because to hold this view, you must completely disregard the context of these scriptures. Something that is never advisable when it comes to Bible study. I mean, let’s just take the context of the first two examples I gave: Leviticus 19:34 and Ezekiel 16:49. Leviticus is a chapter full of God’s laws to the Israelites. Laws that incidentally would prohibit “foreigners in our land” from worshiping their own gods, impose Jewish dietary restrictions, and demand the death penalty for what many are now considering “alternative lifestyles”. Is that really the context you want to operate in? The entire context of Ezekiel 16:49 is a rebuke comparing Jerusalem to an adulterous wife who behaves like a prostitute. He goes on to tell them they will bear the consequences of their lewdness and detestable practices. Spoiler alert- He ain’t just talking about their failure to be compassionate to the needy! With regard to Matthew 25:34-46, maybe I could understand a pro-open borders, pro- illegal immigration application of these scriptures IF the rest of the Bible was silent regarding the formation of nations and boundaries and the role of the Christian vs the role of the government. However, as it turns out- the Bible has quite a lot to say on these topics.

What does the Bible have to say about nations and boundaries? Well, first off, God Himself created them way back in Genesis 11. Prior to Genesis 11 all people spoke a common language. We all know the story: the world had become so wicked that God destroyed it all in a flood- all with the exception of Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark. After the flood, God’s command to Noah and his family was to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth. Instead, man gathered together in the plain of Shinar to build themselves a city. We all know this story about the Tower of Babel. It was our first attempt at a one world government. Interestingly, many astrological and occult practices date back to the Tower of Babel. So, God nipped that in the bud right quick. Genesis 11:5-9 explains that God confused their languages and scattered them over the earth. Why did God do this? Joseph Farah explains it well in his article What Bible Says About Illegal Immigration, “It seems He scattered the world’s population and created the diverse languages in an effort to subvert man’s efforts to unite in a global kingdom under a false universal religion…Interestingly, one of the prime motivations of those behind the promotion of borderless societies is this very same notion of regional government and global government and the breakdown of nationalism.” God is sovereign over all and that includes nations and boundaries. Acts 17:26 says “and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation…” God created the boundaries for a reason.

Now that we have established that God actually created the nations and their boundaries, we must note that the Bible makes very clear distinctions between the role of the government and the role of the individual. Scripture clearly indicates that God charges governments with preserving order, protecting citizens, and punishing wrongdoers- Romans 13:1-7. Earthly governors “bear the sword” on behalf of those under their authority. This means governments are given the authority to preserve law and order, fight off invaders, and punish law breakers. When it comes to immigration, the government is well within its right to create and enforce laws to preserve the safety and welfare of its citizens. Government is also well within its right to punish anyone- citizen or not, who breaks these laws. Doug Brandow sums it up well in his Biblical Foundations of Limited Government, “Thus, government is to be a neutral arbiter and protector.”

Conversely, the Bible charges the individual with a completely different role. Jesus tells us in Luke 6:27-31: “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.” In this passage Jesus is specifically speaking to us as individuals. In John 18:36, Jesus tells us “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” Here Jesus says that we should not fight for the sake of His spiritual kingdom. As Doug Brandow notes regarding I Timothy 2:1-4, “We are to pray for the welfare of government and to thank God for the blessings that we receive through it. We receive earthly blessings through the activities of the government, but our most important concern for government is that it will promote peaceful conditions in which the Gospel can be freely preached, so that all men have the opportunity to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Matthew 25:34-46 applies specifically to us as individuals and our personal acts of kindness for which we will be held accountable. When it comes to our individual responsibility to immigrants, illegal or otherwise, we absolutely have the personal responsibility to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, care for the stranger, etc. Our actions are to be guided by compassion for all people. It also bears mentioning that in our role as purveyors of compassion, we are also exhorted in Leviticus 19:15 to do so fairly, not perverting justice to show partiality or favoritism to the poor.

However, when we as Christians confuse commands given specifically to us as individuals and endeavor to apply them to the government, it results in a failure of the government to perform in its Biblical capacity. It is indeed merciful and loving for an individual to “turn the other cheek”, give to the needy, or personally sacrifice in order to help others, but the government can’t do any of these things- it can only obligate its citizens to. Applying this scripture to a government causes it to inflict harm on its citizens. Let’s look at amnesty for example. Forgiving those who have entered the country illegally or allowing those whose visas have expired to stay, might be considered “compassionate” to the lawbreaker, but what are the effects on US citizens? If these people are granted legal status they now qualify for already scarce public resources such as Medicaid, welfare, etc at the cost of US citizens. The US, at this point, is struggling to fund these programs for the benefit of our own needy citizens. (The extent to which the US should offer these programs is a related issue, but beyond the scope of this discussion- so I’m just going to leave that one alone for now.) Some may say, “We must be compassionate to both!” Yes, we as individuals should- but the reality is resources are NOT unlimited. (Some people have a hard time accepting this concept, but I assure you- the government has no resources of its own. The resources the government has are derived from the citizens and we as citizens do not have unlimited funds) Resources that go to one individual, reduce the availability of resources to other individuals. This causes the government to fail in its role by placing compassion for the foreigner above compassion for its citizens.

Should the government “turn the other cheek” in response to threats of war from our “neighbor” nations? Whether or not certain groups may acknowledge it, does not change the fact that we are currently at war with radical Islam. Their entire goal is to defeat the “infidels” (that’s ALL of us here in the US, not just the conservatives by the way) and instate their ideology complete with Sharia law- which is not exactly a pro-human rights system- to say the least. It is also a verifiable fact that ISIS has in the past and currently continues to use the sad state of our immigration law enforcement along with our refugee policy to infiltrate the US.( If you would like to be educated regarding the history of Islam, I have attached a fabulous video that breaks it down in about 17 minutes at the bottom of this article.) It is the very definition of the Biblical role of our government to protect it’s citizens from such threats through the enforcement of immigration laws, temporary bans, extreme vetting measures, or whatever means it has at its disposal. The willingness of certain citizens, Christian or not, to put themselves at risk to show compassion to foreigners is of no consequence to a government, which acts as an agent for all citizens as a whole- not certain groups of citizens.

In order for Christians to be consistent in this “turn the other cheek” policy with respect to government, we would also have to eliminate the police along with our criminal justice system. Some may consider this an oversimplification, but is it? Coming into the US illegally is the same as breaking into someone’s home. A criminal breaking into your home may also be driven by desperation rather than selfishness or evil, yet that doesn’t affect your decision to lock your door at night. The fact that you lock your door at night doesn’t equate to hate or lack of mercy or compassion for the criminal. Taking measures to protect your family from harm or to guard your possessions doesn’t render you devoid of compassion. By the same turn, relying on the government to enforce laws, punish lawbreakers, and promote a safe society doesn’t equate to a lack of mercy or compassion. If anyone makes such claims, they do so without Biblical basis. We should all strive to be compassionate and merciful, but nowhere does the Bible suggest that we forsake wisdom and prudence in our efforts.

As a matter of fact, when we as Christians become driven to transform the Biblical role of government by transposing our individual responsibilities onto it, we not only cause government to fail in its role, but we can become failures in our own roles as well. For example, when we delude ourselves into thinking that an “open door policy” for our government is the most compassionate and merciful way to help our neighbor, we tend to ignore evidence that “bringing everyone to our house” is not necessarily the best way to help an individual OR a whole ailing nation of individuals. Studies show, that if we literally crammed the US full to capacity with immigrants, we couldn’t even make a dent in the population of needy people worldwide. (If you want to see this fact come alive before your very eyes, take the time to watch the incredibly insightful video I have attached at the end of this article and be educated.) Am I saying that it isn’t worth helping just a few people? Of course not, but how about we aim bigger!

Here’s another example that focuses on the current refugee crisis. According to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in his article, “The five-year cost to American taxpayers of resettling a single Middle Eastern refugee in the United States is conservatively estimated to be more than $64,000, compared with U.N. figures that indicate it costs about $5,300 to provide for that same refugee for five years in his native region. Each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money. In other words, each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money. Faced with twelve drowning people, only a monster would send them a luxurious one-man boat rather than twelve life jackets. And yet, with the best of intentions, that is exactly what we are doing when we choose one lucky winner to resettle here…Security concerns aside, it is morally unjustifiable to help the few at the expense of the many.” Strong words indeed, but words many of us need to hear. It may make us feel warm and fuzzy to think about how compassionate we are being by opening our borders to refugees while ignoring the dangers we are subjecting our country to by doing so, but is that what Jesus commanded? Emphatically no! Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands US to GO make disciples in other nations. It would be a far stretch indeed to ascertain the we must open our borders so that nations will come to us to be evangelized, OR so that foreigners could come here illegally for any reason at all. The Bible makes clear the role of government and the role of the individual- too much blurring of these lines results in a failure of either to adequately perform their role.

So what should we as Christians be doing to fulfill our duty? For one, we should be concerned with helping ALL the needy- not just the foreign needy. Get out and help your literal neighbors! Give YOUR resources- time and/or money- to organizations that help the needy here in the US as well as organizations that are dedicated to help those abroad. Don’t demand that the government do so in your place and rest believing that this will be counted to you as righteousness. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. We are not all individually called specifically to foreign mission. If you are, awesome! God has different plans for each of us. Don’t underestimate the value of mission here in the United States or in your own community.

I just want to end with this caution to Christians who may get caught up in the “left’s” version of what society should be, which is based on a false interpretation of the “love” of Jesus. Jesus isn’t, nor has He ever been a pushover. Love is not synonymous with approving of what any person may believe they require to make them happy. There is a word for that, but it isn’t love- it’s enabling. Also, disapproval is not synonymous with hate. We are fully capable of truly loving someone while at the same time not agreeing with or approving of their choices or behaviors. There will be a time, when the open borders/one world government model will prevail despite the effort of Christians to maintain the Biblical role of government, because that also is a part of God’s plan. This is yet again, the attempt of man to usher in a utopian society without God. God uses this effort to usher in the end times and ultimately establish His Kingdom. If you want to see how that works out, read the book of Revelation. I’ll give you a hint- He WINS. Don’t doubt for a second that these liberal concepts (open borders, socialistic welfare states, etc) are a push in that direction, even if they “seem” upon first glance to be the compassionate route.

Links:

1. Immigration, World Poverty, and Gumballs:

2. 1400 Years of Islam History in a Few Minutes:

Sources:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/julyweb-only/immigration-reform-another-christian-view.html

http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/what-bible-says-about-illegal-immigration/

http://acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-7-number-1/biblical-foundations-limited-government

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/did-jesus-teach-pacifism

http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees

http://cis.org/ImmigrationBible