Could All the Diversity in the Human Race Have Come From Adam and Eve?

When you look at people today, with all of our diverse characteristics- skin color, hair color, eye shape, height, build, etc, you can’t help but wonder: Could only Adam and Eve, who lived approximately 6,000 to 7,000 years ago have been the foundation for the diverse group we have become? Evolutionary science would tell us no- that the human race must have begun around 200,000 years ago to account for the diversity that is represented among us today. Surprisingly, however, some of the most compelling evidence corroborating the Biblical creation account, is coming from evolutionary scientists.

Let’s look at the path evolutionary science takes using the example of skin color. To explain the rainbow of varying shades, (not just the four scientific classifications of race: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid) but the incredible diversity among each race (dark skinned Caucasoids, light skinned Negroids, varying shades of Mongoloids), the October 2002 issue of Scientific American claims that skin color is evolving in order to come to “just the right skin color”. A color dark enough to prevent the nutrient folate from being destroyed in the sun, but light enough to allow the production of vitamin D. Dr. Brad Harrub writing for Apologetics Press sums up the thought process evolutionist currently use to describe the human evolution of skin color (evolution from chimps, of course, who by the way do not have varying skin color), “For those of you keeping track, here’s a quick summary: We lost body hair to cool our growing brains. Our pink skin and folate levels were in danger of UV radiation, so we evolved lots of melanin and became dark skinned. But some humans traveled to areas where there wasn’t as much sunlight, thus they were required to evolve lighter skin.”

Of course, Creationists do not need to rely on mutations, we assert that our Creator, God, created man with the best possible combination of skin-color genes. With this knowledge we can scientifically account for skin color diversity (and most other diversity for that matter) using a simple Punnette Square straight from your high school biology class. Here’s a little refresher: The pigment melanin (which controls skin color) is mainly controlled by two pairs of genes- Aa and Bb. A and B are dominant and produce melanin well, while a and b are recessive and do not. If God created Adam and Eve “heterozygous” (meaning they had both dominant and recessive genes: AaBb) they would have been a middle brown color and capable of producing anywhere from darkest Negroid to lightest Caucasoid.

According to Dr. Brad Harrub, “The whole process is “put into reverse,” however, when people of different skin colors intermarry. Various combinations of genes occur, and the offspring thus begin to show a rainbow effect of skin colors, ranging from black to white.”

Now, obviously Adam and Eve could have literally created a rainbow of offspring within one generation. However, with all the mixing going on through the generations, many varying shades would have been produced. Notice, “race” is never even mentioned in the Bible.

I know what you’re thinking- Ok, but that’s not how it works today- white parents have white children only, black parents have black children only and so on. This is where the findings of evolutionary science fit in perfectly with the Bible.

Evolutionary scientists have come to the conclusion that there must have been some type of “bottleneck” (extreme reduction) in the earth’s population somewhere around 5,000 years ago when the population really began to diversify. Of course, creationists refer to that as the flood of Noah’s day. Dr. Jeffery P. Tomkins writes for the Institute of Creation Research, “A new study reported in the journal Science has advanced our knowledge of rare DNA variation associated with gene regions in the human genome. By applying a demographics-based model to the data, researchers discovered that the human genome began to rapidly diversify about 5,000 years ago.”

Why are scientists just now coming to these conclusions? Dr. Jeffery Tomkins explains, “Typically, evolutionary scientists incorporate hypothetical deep time scales taken from paleontology or just borrowed from other authors to develop and calibrate models of genetic change over time. In contrast this Science study used demographic models of human populations over known historical time and known geographical space. The resulting data showed a very recent, massive burst of human genetic diversification.”

This creates quite a conundrum for evolutionists, but a not so surprising affirmation for Creationists. From Dr. Tomkins article, “The authors [of the demographic study] wrote, ‘The maximum likelihood for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago.’” Tomkins continues, “Old earth proponents now have a new challenge: to explain why- after millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans- human genomic diversity exploded only within the last five thousand years?…Since the author’s date represents maximum time, the actual DNA diversification event probably occurred even sooner. A biblical time scale indicates that a global flood occurred about 4,500 years ago, and this closely correlates with the time scale of the researcher’s estimate.”

Dr. Robert W. Carter explains the genetic implications in his article for Creation Ministries International titled Adam, Eve, and Noah vs Modern Genetics and I’ll hit the high points. We really don’t know what type of genetic mutation had occurred prior to the flood, but whatever there was, was reduced to the genetics represented in Noah’s family. Let’s start with the basics. Y chromosomes can only be passed through the male (obviously- it’s what makes a male a male), so fathers pass this on directly to their sons. This means, there was ONLY one Y chromosome represented on the ark even though there were 4 men (Noah and his 3 sons). This means whatever mutations had occurred in the Y chromosome up to that point, were effectively erased because only Noah’s sons reproduced after the flood. (The Bible doesn’t say Noah had any more children, so I assume he didn’t. But whether he did or not is neither here nor there.)

Can we know how many X chromosome lineages were on the ark? We can’t know for sure, but if you do the math, there would have been a maximum of 8 (9 if Noah had a daughter after the flood). Dr. Carter notes, “And since X chromosomes recombine (in females), we are potentially looking at a huge amount of genetic diversity within the X chromosomes of the world.”

This fits perfectly with genetic findings because, as it turns out, Y chromosomes are similar worldwide! Dr. Carter elaborates, “According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (ie, highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found. This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines.” X chromosome lineage fits just as well. Dr Carter notes, “As it turns out, there are only three main mitochondrial (female) DNA lineages found across the world.”

I hear you saying, “So how does this result in the race related diversification that we have today?!?” It all goes back to another Biblical event- the Tower of Babel. Prior to the separation that God ushered in at the Tower of Babel, the culture was described as a homologous one- all sharing the same language and intermixing freely. So much so, that they were disobeying God’s command to scatter and fill the earth. For our discussion today, the applicable verse is Genesis 10:32, “These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.”

Dr. Carter highlights the significance of this verse on the world we see today, “At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and is the key to understanding human genetic history. Paternal sorting would lead to specific Y chromosome lineages in different geographical locations. Since males and females from the three main families should have been freely intermixing prior to this, it also leads to a mixing of the mitochondrial lines. It is as if God put all the people into a giant spreadsheet and hit a button called ‘Sort According to Father.’ He then took that list and used it to divide up and separate the nations.”

We also know that what little variation there is among Y chromosomes is almost always geographically specific. This means after they were separated by Y chromosome, mutations occurred among the new smaller people groups who now only mixed among themselves. This makes those mutations geographically specific. Mitochondrial DNA on the other hand, is pretty much randomly distributed around the world. The variations we see now in mitochondrial DNA are also geographically specific.

This is nothing short of a perfect parallel to the Biblical account. The people groups were separated according to their father, meaning each group only had a specific amount of genetic information from that point going forward. The groups then dispersed, each ending up in completely different geographical areas. Mutations that occurred within each group were effected by their differing climates/environments to some degree and from that point forward became characteristics specific to that group only. This gives rise to the various characteristics that we consider “race specific”.

Interestingly, today, we can see this very concept working in reverse right before our very eyes. As people groups come together (especially here in the melting pot of the USA) and intermix freely, the attributes regarded as “race specific” are mingled and contribute toward a more homologous human race. We have proven to be a scientific product of our Biblical history and as time goes on we continue to prove it.







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.










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 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


Letter to Bill Clinton link:

Link to Kissinger Report: