Today there is headline after headline in the mainstream media about how dangerous "climate change" is and about how the world as we know it is going to end if we don't take dramatic steps to fight global warming.  But what they don't tell you in the mainstream media is what the "final solution" for the problem of "climate change" that the global elite have come up with actually is.  You see, for the global elite the math is simple.  They believe that human overpopulation is causing climate change, and so the solution to climate change is population control.  As bizarre as that sounds, that is what they actually believe.  The truth is that they are convinced that climate change is going to literally destroy the earth and that the best way to fight climate change is to get rid of a whole bunch of us.

In fact, it is the official policy of the United Nations to fight climate change by promoting population control measures.  They don't even try to camouflage it anymore.  Last year the UNFPA (the United Nations Population Fund) released its annual State of the World Population Report entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate", and in that document it was made clear that the official position of the UN is that the only way to avoid a major climate disaster is to dramatically increase "family planning" services around the globe and to do whatever is necessary to reduce worldwide fertility rates. 

Check out just a few of the quotes about the link between overpopulation and climate change contained in the UNFPA report....

*"The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports."

*"Still, calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of emissions growth."

*"Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendents. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."

*"No human is genuinely "carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."

*"Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns."

No human is genuinely carbon neutral?

That means by being alive, we are all part of the problem.

To the elite, we are viewed as "useless eaters" that have multiplied to the point where we are now wildly out of control and are threatening to destroy the earth with our toxic carbon emissions.

And don't think for a moment that the United Nations Population Fund is not a big time international organization.

They are active in virtually ever corner of the planet, they have the full backing of the United Nations, and thanks to Barack Obama they have 50 million U.S. taxpayer dollars with which to advance their eugenics agenda.

But it is not just the United Nations that is preoccupied with population control as a solution to global warming.

Bill Gates is absolutely obsessed with it.

In the video posted below, Bill Gates explains his belief that carbon emissions from humans are causing climate change, and that the only way to stop climate change is to reduce those carbon emissions to zero.

That is right. 

While you watch the clip, notice how many times he emphasizes the need to bring these carbon emissions down to zero.

So how does he propose to do this?

Well, one of his suggestions is to slow the growth of the population.

And how will that be accomplished?

In the video Bill Gates tells us exactly what his solution is....

"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

Now wait a minute - aren't vaccines supposed to keep people alive?

Wouldn't more vaccines actually increase the population?

Or does Bill Gates know something that we don't?

What Bill Gates has to say in this video is absolutely jaw dropping....

But of course Bill Gates is not the only one who is obsessed with climate change and population control.

In this next video, David Rockefeller explains how we are on the verge of a massive ecological disaster because there are too many people on the planet....

The truth is that while you and I may not give much thought to "overpopulation", the global elite are truly obsessed with it. 

In fact, they even hold gatherings where they all get together and talk about it.  Just over one year ago Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and a number of other incredibly wealthy individuals held a secret meeting in New York.

So what was the topic of this secret meeting?

Population control.

One anonymous attendee of the meeting was quoted in a major U.K. newspaper as saying that overpopulation "is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers."

Apparently they are the big brains that are going to figure out the best ways to make sure that there are fewer of the rest of us running around.

So the next time you hear about the incredible "threat" of climate change in the mainstream media, keep in mind what the global elite believe the ultimate solution to that threat is.

As Bill Gates said, they are not going to be satisfied until they get carbon emissions by humans down to zero.

And considering the fact that you have been breathing out carbon dioxide the whole time that you have been reading this article, that is not good news for you.

For the environmental extremists attending the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen, fighting global warming is not just about reducing carbon emissions or promoting alternative energy.  Rather, public documents released by some of the most important organizations represented at Copenhagen reveal an absolute obsession with population control and a bizarre belief by environmental extremists that population reduction is the "cheapest" way to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions.  You see, to many of those gathered in Copenhagen, the math is simple.  Less people = less carbon emitters.  In fact, a carbon offset initiative launched by the Optimum Population Trust even allows people to offset their "carbon footprint" by making online payments to support "family planning" in poor countries.  In other words, you can now be forgiven for your carbon "sins" by paying for a baby on the other side of the world to be killed.

As bizarre as this may seem, it is actually happening.

These new "population carbon offsets" are being offered by the Optimum Population Trust.  The OPT calls itself "the leading think tank in the UK concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment".  The truth is that the OPT does have some really big names associated with it.  Just some of the world famous individuals involved in the Optimum Population Trust include Sir David Attenborough, Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich and Dr. Jane Goodall. One of the stated goals of the OPT is to "advance the education of the public in issues relating to human population worldwide and its impact on environmental sustainability".

The OPT's website even includes a "Stop At Two" pledge which asks people to take "another green step towards environmental survival for all" by making the following pledge:

I'm going to try not to have more than two children!

To show just how committed they are to the population control agenda, the OPT launched this population carbon offset scheme on December 3rd - just prior to the beginning of the Copenhagen climate change summit.

In his report on this new carbon offset initiative, John Vidal, the environment editor for the Guardian, noted that many of the participants at the Copenhagen summit could easily offset the carbon emissions that they would be producing during their travel to the conference by paying for one child in Africa to be killed....

Calculations based on the trust's figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya.

In fact, the OPT has launched a dedicated website, http://www.popoffsets.com/, which allows people to offset their carbon footprint by making online payments to OPT which will go towards "family planning" around the world.

But not only that, earlier this year the Optimum Population Trust commissioned the London School of Economics to produce a report on population issues.  The final report, entitled "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost", says that the best way to reduce "greenhouse gases" is to have fewer people on earth.

This report by the London School of Economics actually performed a "cost-benefit analysis" on the various methods for reducing carbon emissions around the world, and they found that the "cheapest" way to reduce carbon emissions by far was to increase funding for "family planning".

But not only is population control the official agenda for organizations such as the OPT, it is also the official agenda of the United Nations.

Very few people have talked about the U.N. Population Division policy brief from March 2009, but it is an absolutely explosive document.  This shocking policy document openly asks how fertility decline in the least developed countries can be "accelerated" as quickly as possible.

The entire March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief can be read here.... 

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/UNPD_policybriefs/UNPD_policy_brief1.pdf

The policy brief begins with this shocking question....

What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?

The report then proceeds to discuss how the earth's population is clearly unsustainable (especially in "developing" countries) and it considers what can be done to make sure that fewer babies are born in the "least developed" nations.

But as bad as that report was, the U.N. recently released a report on population that was even more shocking.

The United Nations Population Fund recently released its annual State of the World Population Report entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate".  This stunning report goes farther than any U.N. report has ever gone before by unequivocally linking population growth with climate change.  The report states that the only way a climate disaster can be avoided is to radically increase "family planning" services around the globe and to do whatever it takes to reduce worldwide fertility rates.  In a statement accompanying the release of the report, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid stated that "rapid population growth and industrialization have led to a rapid rise in greenhouse gas emissions. We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster."

The director of the UNFPA says that we are on the brink of disaster.

A "climate change" disaster.

And what is causing it?

According to him, the biggest cause is population growth.

But the truth is that mankind is not even causing climate change.  For those who do not yet understand this, we highly recommend that you read a comprehensive article that we posted about this issue on our sister site entitled "How To Save The Environment? Get Al Gore The Heck Away From It". 

But even if you concede that humanity is causing climate change, the truth is that there is still no justification for reducing the population in order to combat it.

But according to the authors of this new U.N. report, the link between population growth and climate change is undeniable....

"The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports."

In fact, the authors of the U.N. report are convinced that population growth has been responsible for approximately half of the growth of worldwide carbon emissions....

"Still, calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of emissions growth."

According to the authors of the report, humanity must be "mobilized" to fight the causes of climate change before disaster strikes....

"The harsh realities of high per capita emissions among industrialized countries and swiftly rising ones among developing countries highlight the urgency of mobilizing all of humanity to stop collectively at the brink of this possible climate disaster zone."

So what is the very best way to reduce carbon emissions according to the U.N. report?  Well, according to the report, each birth that can be eliminated can have a dramatic impact on reducing carbon emissions.....

"Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendents. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."

But the authors of the U.N. report also recognize that the idea of "population control" is extremely unpopular in many areas of the world.  But that is not stopping them from suggesting that it is time to seriously address population control as part of the battle against climate change....

"fear of appearing supportive of population control has until recently held back any mention of 'population' in the climate debate. Nonetheless, some participants in the debate are tentatively suggesting the need at least consider the impacts of population growth."

So if "climate change" is the world's biggest problem, who is the enemy?

Well, it turns out that humanity itself is the enemy.

The U.N. report is very clear that no human can ever be "carbon neutral"....

"No human is genuinely "carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."

So if no human can ever be "carbon neutral", what does that mean?

It means that you, me, our families and everyone else on earth is a part of the problem.

The fact that we exist is a problem to them.

So what is the solution according to the authors of the report?....

"Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns."

In other words, we all need to pass out more condoms, encourage more women to get abortions and tell more women that they need to focus on their careers instead of their families so that we can get them to have less children.

You see, the term "family planning" in the report is just code for things like "lower fertility rates" and "smaller families"....

"family planning services and supplies are especially powerful in delaying the age of first pregnancies and reducing the size of completed families"

The reality is that the U.N. report uses a lot of thinly veiled, politically correct language to suggest that in order to fight climate change, radical population control measures should be implemented.

Thanks to the Obama administration, the UNPF will have plenty of money with which to pursue that agenda.

Back in March, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration's policy and directed that 50 million dollars be given to the United Nations Population Fund.

So not only is the United Nations Population Fund promoting their population control agenda around the globe, they are also using American tax dollars to do it.

But it is not just the environmental elitists among globalist organizations that are obsessed with population control.

The truth is that the population control agenda is taught side by side with the global warming and radical environmental agendas in universities throughout the world.

Millions of normal people who have been indoctrinated in these universities are now buying into this agenda and are taking action.

For example, there is actually a website entitled "One Less Child" that openly promotes the idea that people should have one less child.  The idea is that having less children is the absolute best thing that a person can do to help the environment.  Their mission statement actually says the following about the need to control the population.....

To have couples consider population reduction through less offspring. Having less offspring actually increases the quality of life of your current offspring, which is what every couple wants.

Not only that, but an author by the name of Diane Francis recently authored an article in a national Canadian newspaper that openly called for Canada to implement a formal one child policy like China has done. 

Her article, entitled "The Real Inconvenient Truth", has fortunately caused an uproar throughout Canada.  It seems that most Canadians are not yet ready to accept a mandatory one child policy. 

In her article, Francis presents two scenarios.  The first is if a one-child policy is implemented worldwide.  The second is if a one-child policy is not implemented....

These radical environmentalists actually believe that there will be unprecedented global disasters if radical population control measures are not enforced across the globe immediately.

Of course by now most people who will read this article know that this bizarre population control agenda is even represented in the White House. Barack Obama's "science czar", John P. Holdren, once co-authored a textbook entitled "Ecoscience" in which he advocated population control measures that are so wild and so bizarre that it is difficult to believe that a sane individual actually authored them. 

What follows are actual quotes from Holdren's textbook....

Pages 787 and 788....

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would haveto meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Pages 786 and 787....

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Page 838....

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Keep in mind that Holdren is now Barack Obama's top science advisor.

But even some of the richest people in the world are absolutely obsessed with population control.  Back on May 5th, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and a number of other of the wealthiest people in the world gathered for a clandestine meeting in Manhattan.  The meeting was supposed to be so secret that many of the billionaires’ aides were only told that they were at "security briefings".

So what was so important that so many of the wealthiest people in the world had to gather for a secret meeting?

Population control.

According to one major U.K. newspaper, one person who attended this secret meeting confessed that "a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat."

This is what the richest people in the world are so upset about?

The article goes on to quote one attendee of the meeting as saying the following about the "overpopulation problem"....

"This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers."

Apparently they do not intend to include the rest of us as they come up with their "big-brain answers".

It would be a mistake to underestimate how obsessed the global elite are with population issues.

The truth is that they are absolutely committed to trying to solve the "population problem" in this generation.

So what will their "solutions" look like?

We can only guess.

But what we do know is that in the name of fighting "climate change", the United Nations and the global elite plan to pursue a radical population control agenda.  According to their own documents, the number one problem the world is facing is "climate change" and the number one cause of "climate change" is overpopulation.

Knowing that many nations on earth will never willingly submit to open population control measures, the global elite will likely implement their population reduction methods by subtle means.  Let us just hope that they are not successful in their attempts to eliminate as many people as possible. 

The United Nations Population Fund has released its annual State of the World Population Report entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate".  This report goes farther than any U.N. report before it by unequivocally linking population growth with climate change, and it suggests that the only way to avoid climate "disaster" is to increase "family planning" services around the world, reduce fertility rates and encourage families around the world to have less children.  As if to underline this point, in a statement accompanying the release of this new report, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid stated that "rapid population growth and industrialization have led to a rapid rise in greenhouse gas emissions. We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster."

The brink of disaster?

Doesn't that seem just a little bit alarmist?

Well, the truth is that environmental extremists have resorted to increasingly strong language in an attempt to whip up the fear of climate change. 

Unfortunately, humans are not even causing climate change.  If you do not know this, then we recommend that you read the comprehensive article that we posted about this on our sister site entitled "How To Save The Environment? Get Al Gore The Heck Away From It". 

But even if humans were causing "climate change" (which they most certainly are not), there is still no justification for trying to reduce the population in order to fight it.

But apparently the authors of this new U.N. report are convinced otherwise.  The authors of the report were very clear about how they feel about the link between population growth and climate change....

"The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports."

In fact, the authors believe that population growth has been responsible for approximately half of the growth of carbon emissions....

"Still, calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of emissions growth."

So according to the authors of the report, it is the growth in the human population that has brought us to the very brink of a planetary disaster....

"The harsh realities of high per capita emissions among industrialized countries and swiftly rising ones among developing countries highlight the urgency of mobilizing all of humanity to stop collectively at the brink of this possible climate disaster zone."

So what is the very best way to reduce climate change?  According to the authors of the report, each future person that can be eliminated can have a huge impact on reducing carbon emissions.....

"Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendents. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."

But the authors of the report also recognize that the idea of "population control" is very unpopular in many areas - but that also it is time to seriously address it as part of the climate change debate....

"fear of appearing supportive of population control has until recently held back any mention of 'population' in the climate debate. Nonetheless, some participants in the debate are tentatively suggesting the need at least consider the impacts of population growth."

So if "climate change" is the problem, who is the enemy?

Well, it turns out that humanity is the enemy.

The report is very clear that no human can ever be "carbon neutral"....

"No human is genuinely "carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."

Everyone is part of the problem?

So that means that the authors of the report are saying that you and I and are families are part of the problem.

The fact that we exist is part of the problem to them.

So what is the solution according to the authors?....

"Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns."

In other words, we need to pass out more condoms, encourage more women to get abortions and tell more women they need to focus on their careers instead of their families so that we can get them to have less children.

You see, the term "family planning services" is just code in the report for things like "lower fertility rates" and "smaller families"....

"family planning services and supplies are especially powerful in delaying the age of first pregnancies and reducing the size of completed families"

The truth is that the report uses a lot of thinly veiled, politically correct language to suggest that in order to fight climate change, radical population control measures should be implemented.

For example, the report specifically mentions Barack Obama's top science czar, John P. Holdren, and his belief that population growth is driving consumption growth....

In 1991, physicist John P. Holdren, now chief science advisor to U.S. President Barack Obama, noted that "changes in settlement patterns necessitated by population growth result in more transport, per person, of resources, goods, and people," making a case that population growth directly stimulates consumption growth.

So what does John P. Holdren believe about population control?  Well, the truth is that he once co-authored a textbook entitled "Ecoscience" in which he advocated population control measures that are so extreme that it is hard to believe that a sane man authored them.  The following are real quotes from Holdren's textbook.....

Pages 787 and 788....

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would haveto meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Pages 786 and 787....

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Page 838....

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Are you starting to get the picture?

Keep in mind that John P. Holdren is the number one science advisor in Barack Obama's administration.

This is the kind of stuff that the guy actually believes, and he is not being forced to resign.

The truth is that the Obama administration is fully behind the population control agenda.

Back in March, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration's policy and directed that 50 million dollars be given to the United Nations Population Fund - the authors of the report discussed above.

So not only is the United Nations Population Fund promoting their populaton control agenda around the world, they are also using your tax dollars to do it.

Most Americans have never even heard of Barack Obama's top science advisor. 

So who is he?

His name is John P. Holdren, and he co-authored a book in 1977 in which he advocated mass sterilizations using the food and water supply, mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children, forced abortions for American couples trying to have too many children and a global police force to enforce population control.

Seriously.

This is Barack Obama's top science advisor.

Holdren advocated these horrific proposals in the 1977 book entitled "Ecoscience", which he co-authored with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

When reports of Holdren's book first started to surface, they were quickly dismissed by many because it just seemed so unbelievable that the top science advisor to the president of the United States would hold such bizarre beliefs.

However, once one blogger posted pictures of the pages of Holdren's book up on the Internet, people started to realize that Holdren really did write these things.

Let's take a look at some of the more shocking quotes from Holdren's book.

On page 837,  it is written that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the Constitution of the United States:

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

On page 786, the book says that single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government and that they could be forced to have abortions if the government decides that is best:

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

On pages 787 and 788, the book advocates the mass sterilization of humans by putting drugs in the water supply:

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

On pages 786 and 787, the authors discuss sterilizing women after their second or third child:

Involuntary fertility control

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

On page 838, the authors state their belief that there is nothing wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size:

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

On pages 942 and 943, the authors call for the development of a “planetary regime” that would control the global economy and enforce population control measures:

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

On page 917, the authors advocate the surrender of national sovereignty to an armed international police force:

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

The truly frightening thing, however, is that Holdren is not just one isolated nutjob.  Rather, his views are an accurate representation of what is commonly believed among the global elite.  They believe that the earth is way too overpopulated, and that if totalitarian measures are not taken it will have catastrophic consequences for the planet.

Those scientists who advocate eugenics and radical population control are funded and promoted by the global elite.  In fact, prior to becoming Obama's top science advisor, Holdren was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

The truth is that the global elite are absolutely obsessed with reducing the population of this planet, and it would be a huge mistake to underestimate their obsession with population issues.  If you have any doubt about this fact, then you should read this article which we posted on a sister blog.

It is NOT acceptable for a member of the president's administration to believe in mass sterilization, forced abortions for American women and a global police force.  Please contact your representatives in Congress and ask them to call for the resignation of John Holdren.