Alex Jones show promotes Maafa21

( www.maafa21.com)

Opening the Gates Wide to Population Control Abuse

Opening the Gates Wide to Population Control Abuse
Brian Clowes
Human Life International

In July 1912, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, and other leaders in the early race-cleansing eugenics movement held their first international conference in London. Among the leading topics of discussion were how to stop poor and “unfit” African women from breeding.

Exactly 100 years later, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the British Government sponsored the Summit on Family Planning in the same city. This is most likely a coincidence, but the irony is stunning. The objective of the Summit on Family Planning was to raise enough money to “provide 120 million women in the world’s poorest countries with access to contraceptives by 2020,” with a heavy emphasis on Africa. Atop the list of the Gates Foundation’s partners were ― you guessed it ― International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International, the two largest abortion providers in the world, back to finish the work their founders had started a century before.

According to the Summit’s “Summary of Commitments,” getting this many women on birth control will require an additional $4.3 billion over the next eight years, one-fourth of which will be donated by the Gates Foundation.

The Summit was headlined by Prime Minister David Cameron, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, and Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland. It was heralded by many as “A rebirth of family planning,” as if the entire international development industry had not spent the last two decades devising ever-more-aggressive but friendlier-sounding ways to stop Africans, Asians and Latinos from having children. Indeed, the so-called “developed” nations have poured one hundred billion dollars into population control in the Southern Hemisphere since 1995.1

Eighteen of the 24 nations represented at the event were African, so it not was difficult to discern the geographical emphasis of this Summit. Also present as “donors” were the dozen or so “developed” world governments that currently provide 95 percent of all population control funding.

And, of course, Big Pharma was more than adequately represented. Participants such as Bayer, Cipla, Helm, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer stand to gain billions annually should 120 million more women be hooked on their products.

There is nothing new under the sun, especially at “family planning” conferences. Although the more honest language of “population control” is no longer in vogue, the same old disinformation and outright propaganda was the order of the day. For example, the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, a “supporting organization” for the Summit, distributed its grandly titled “Atlas of Birth,” in which it claimed, without a trace of ironic awareness, that “Access to family planning massively boosts women’s chances of surviving pregnancy,” and compares the UK’s maternal mortality rate of 12 per 100,000 live births (where contraceptive prevalence is 86%) and the MMR in Chad, which is one hundred times higher at 1,200 per 100,000 (and which has a contraceptive prevalence of only 3%).

White Ribbon Alliance is implying, of course, that all we have to do is flood Chad (and the rest of Africa) with contraception, and the MMR will miraculously plunge. This simplistic and very dangerous assumption will cost many more lives than it saves, because it entirely neglects far more effective maternal lifesaving measures ― such as prenatal care, attended childbirth in a clean environment, and surgical care for obstetric complications.

In fact, the dangers posed by the Summit are so extreme that many population control groups (including the Center for Reproductive Rights, which never met an abortion it didn’t like) issued a warning before the Summit. The “Civil Society Declaration” condemns “Policies that accept or tacitly condone forced sterilization [and] the coercive provision of contraceptives. … Any return to coercive family planning programs where quality of care and informed consent are ignored would be both shocking and retrograde.”2

One certainly does not want to be perceived as “retrograde,” after all, but these groups have good reason to be concerned. The co-sponsor of the London Summit on Family Planning was the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DfID). This government agency contributed $261.4 million to India’s most recent forced sterilization program. This type of quota- and bounty-based population program inevitably leads to gross and widespread human rights violations. Many Indian women were rounded up and sterilized without their knowledge or consent. Bribery and threats were routine; women were offered $11 and a sari if they were sterilized, or were entered in a lottery where one woman out of thousands sterilized might have won a car, which she could not have afforded to drive anyway. NGO workers who convinced women to have sterilizations received a cash bounty, so the program was ripe for abuse and corruption, as all such programs are.3

One DfID-funded doctor did 53 sterilizations in just two hours by flashlight and botched all 53 procedures, leaving women to lie in agony on a filthy straw-covered floor. He did not even sterilize his instruments between operations, because he was in such a rush to collect as much bounty money as he could.

A 2010 DFID report said that the purpose of its programs was to reduce greenhouse emissions. Since DfID knew that its money would go towards funding forced sterilizations under filthy conditions, we can properly conclude that the agency considers environmental issues more important than the most fundamental rights of poor Indian women.4

Knowing this, the Gates Foundation motto “All Lives have Equal Value” rings a bit hollow.

Another partner of the London Summit was Marie Stopes International (MSI), which makes Planned Parenthood look like a bunch of underachievers by comparison. MSI peddles pornographic posters and movies for public consumption in Great Britain and has admitted to committing illegal abortions all over the world.5 MSI is especially active in Africa, and women commonly refer to illegal abortions as the “Marie Stopes procedure.” Workers at the MSI center in Tororo, Uganda, testified that it did many illegal abortions and also injected women with Depo-Provera shots, telling them that they were malaria treatments.6 In July of this year, the government of Zambia expelled Marie Stopes International for committing hundreds of illegal abortions over a period of just five months.7

Melinda Gates takes the well-worn road that so many other lapsed Catholics have trod by claiming that “The [Gates] foundation doesn’t take a position on abortion.”8 This is like someone saying that they don’t take a position on racism while contributing millions of dollars to the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan National Alliance.

The Gates Foundation has donated more than one billion dollars to the most virulent pro-abortion groups in the worlds specifically for “family planning” activities.9

These include the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has lavishly praised the Chinese forced-abortion program and has actually helped to implement it; CARE International, which is pushing hard to legalize abortion in several African nations; Pathfinder International, which has been doing illegal “menstrual extraction” abortions in many nations for decades; and, of course, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which does more to push abortion all over the world than any other organization on Earth.

The most persuasive propaganda in support of the London Summit on Family Planning was provided by Melinda Gates herself, who said that “When I travel and talk to women around the world they tell me that access to contraceptives can often be the difference between life and death. Today is about listening to their voices, about meeting their aspirations, and giving them the power to create a better life for themselves and their families.”10

These encounters were obviously carefully choreographed photo ops with African women who all obediently parroted the “we must have contraception!” line they had been fed by the Gates advance teams. It seems very odd that, of all the women quoted by Melinda Gates, not a single one spoke of the need for prenatal care, delivery in a safe and clean environment, and surgical treatment for obstetric problems, measures that would save many more lives in the long run.

While preparing for her carefully-planned gala Summit, Melinda Gates entirely ignored the voices of those women who disagreed with her goal of flooding the world with birth control.

One of these was a Nigerian mother who said “With her incredible wealth she wants to replace the legacy of an African woman (which is her child) with the legacy of child-free sex. … Even at a glance, anyone could see that the unlimited and easy availability of contraceptives in Africa would surely increase infidelity and sexual promiscuity as sex is presented by this multi-billion dollar project as a casual pleasure sport that can indeed come with no strings ― or babies ― attached. … I see this $4.6 billion buying us misery. I see it buying us unfaithful husbands. I see it buying us streets devoid of the innocent chatter of children. I see it buying us disease and untimely death. I see it buying us a retirement without the tender loving care of our children. Please, Melinda, listen to the heart-felt cry of an African woman and mercifully channel your funds to pay for what we REALLY need.”11

Mrs. Gates ― are you listening?

Endnotes

1 United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Financial Resource Flows for Population Activities [annual reports]. Table A.1, “Primary Funds of Donor Countries for Population Assistance, by Channel of Distribution.” For complete details and calculations, see Excel spreadsheet F-18-05.XLS.
2 “Women’s Human Rights Must be at the Centre of the Family Planning Summit: Civil Society Declaration.” http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/Civil-Society-Declaration_06_19_2012.pdf, September 17, 2012.
3 Gethin Chamberlain. “UK Aid Helps to Fund Forced Sterilisation of India’s Poor.” The Observ er/The Guardian, April 14, 2012.
4 Ibid.
5 Paul Cornellisson, Marie Stopes International Program Director for South Africa, YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cf7Rg8zxds, September 17, 2012.
6 Face-to-face discussions with Brian Clowes and Father Jonathan Opio at Sacred Heart Parish in Tororo, Uganda, on December 15, 2010. One of the daughters of an HLI counselor went to MSI for malaria treatment but got a Depo-Provera shot instead without her knowing what it was. She lost her cycles for three months, and then started bleeding so heavily she had to seek hospitalization. I heard this very same story from several other women. MSI personnel have boasted about performing illegal abortions all over the world. In fact, abortion in Uganda is called the “MSP” ― the “Marie Stopes procedure.”
7 “Zambia: Gov’t `Aborts’ Marie Stopes.” AllAfrica.com, July 26, 2012.
8 Deborah Solomon. “Questions for Melinda Gates: The Donor.” The New York Times Magazine, October 22, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/magazine/24fob-q4-t.html, September 18, 2012.
9 “Search Awarded Grants” feature on the Gates Foundation Web site at http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grants/Pages/search.aspx.
10 Julio Godoy. “Family Planning Essential for Development.” Inter Press Service News Agency, July 18, 2012.
11 Obianuju Ekeocha. “Unlimited Contraceptives for Africa ― Why Not? The Catholic Free Press, August 10, 2012.

Obama To Give UN Control Of Our Water!

Is Obama’s federal government getting ready to put a huge red X mark on the Hoover Dam, which supplies most of the American West with its life-sustaining water? Having this scenario play out is quite plausible as Barack Obama’s Executive Order # 13547 in support of the global Law of the Sea Treaty (L.O.S.T.) seeks to take control of our water in any form of precipitation, from sky to ocean! Total water control will give the American president and his global cohorts total control of all U.S. citizens if this initiative is not stopped by still-free citizens. Because the Water World enthusiasts are seeking to protect the earth’s water from contamination, they are jiggering U.S. water laws to conform to Obama’s Council on Interagency Ocean Policy to make sure no contamination happens.

Especially riled up are Americans west of the Mississippi because Chapter 13 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment is demanding that a staggering 50% of all U.S. land mass be blocked from any type of productive usage. This literally would be putting our Western States under United Nations domination by prohibiting any mining, drilling, harvesting of timber, or construction of any buildings made by humans.

Not only that; all of our large hoofed, ungulate animals, meaning domestic livestock, are being deemed unsustainable!

Warning: this action is being fast-tracked so that the government can “sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands,” under the definition of the UN Sustainable Development program-Bulletin Release No. 0191.12. This is the odious Agenda 21, pure and simple. Renamed because of its bad press, Agenda 21 wants Americans off their lands, off of their private property, and into government-controlled cluster housing near designated urban areas, controlled by on/off mechanical arms reading your GPS location to determine if you can enter an interstate or not.

READ REST HERE

There is some editorializing by the person who posted this- be warned

Agenda 21: Secrets of The Hunger Games Movie Revealed!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Agenda 21: Secrets of The Hunger Games Movie Re…, posted with vodpod

Environmentalists claim contraception, Agenda 21 will end global warming

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Environmentalists claim contraception, Agenda 2…, posted with vodpod

Environmentalists claim contraception, Agenda 21 will end global warming
BY BEN JOHNSON
• Tue Mar 06, 2012 19:49 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 6, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com)—While President Barack Obama andKathleen Sebelius claim contraceptives can lower health care costs, influential environmentalist activists say birth control may save the world from the scourge of global warming. At a think tank conference last week, activists promoted Agenda 21 and United Nations climate change meetings, claiming that promotion of lower fertility rates “trumps almost anything else” and that the average 14-year-old girl “needs to know how to have” sex “for her pleasure.”

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars held the hearing, “Women’s Health: Key to Climate Adaptation Strategies”last Tuesday. Participants asked, “Can family planning and reproductive health be recognized as a legitimate climate adaptation method?”

Kavita Ramdas, the executive director for the Program on Social Entrepreneurship at Stanford University, cited two recent studies funded by the Hewlett Foundation claiming “that empowering women to time their pregnancies would reduce carbon emissions significantly, providing 8-15 percent of the reductions necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.”

But Ramdas, who serves on the board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, said global population control had fallen on hard times in the current political environment. “Not a single person in the presidential primaries for the Republican position of president is willing to even get behind contraception, much less get behind the notion of any discussion of population,” she said.

This resistance to abortion and contraception at home hindered international attempts to craft “a thoughtful and active strategy around making contraception available to communities around the globe.”

She said, “If we are in the situation in the United States where the Catholic bishops and others, actually a large number of evangelicals, truly believe that somehow [policies] – not forcing somebody who doesn’t believe it to take birth control – but simply paying for it is somehow a moral travesty with the kind of outrage we’ve seen over the last few weeks, we are not going to be in a position to make sure that that kind of provision exists internationally.”

Developments in the American political scene proved, in her estimation, that “you can’t discuss…access to contraception…without feeling that you somehow will get pulled into a discussion, debate, argument, around abortion.” She stated environmentalists “will be quickly slammed” with an allegation that “this is about population control,” a belief she says is “not completely without justification.”

However, she promptly raised that subject by praising President Bill Clinton for repealing the Mexico City policy, which she referred to as the “Global Gag Rule.” The ban, instituted by President Ronald Reagan, barred U.S. funds from promoting abortion abroad. “Why have we gotten to a point in 2012 where we even have to have that discussion?” she asked.

Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and the Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) told LifeSiteNews.com that the “more radical elements” of “the global warming movement have been concentrating on population for a long time.”

He recalled two of the early environmentalist groups were Zero Population Growth and Negative Population Growth. Neither one became a mass movement, lacking popular appeal.
“I think that the environmental movement, if you polled the leadership and the staff of the various organizations, most of them would believe the world needs very serious population control,” he said. “It’s a logical part of the movement. Human beings are a blight on the planet, so the fewer human beings the better.”

Despite the long linkage of environmentalism and population control, it remains little known in the mainstream media. “The global warming alarmist camp has tried to keep this argument under wraps,” Ebell said, “because they don’t want to antagonize even more people than they’ve already antagonized with their policies.”

Ramdas proved unafraid of a backlash, complaining that the American view that young teenagers are unprepared for sex undermines international efforts to teach sex education.
“A sexually active 14-year-old or 16-year-old as any of you who have teenage children can attest to, is full of her own sexuality,” she said.

A young teen “is not just some innocent waiting to be raped” but “has sexual feelings, has sexual desires, is interested in sex, wants to have it, and needs to know how to have it in ways that are good for her health, for her pleasure, and to understand that that sexuality is as true for young men of her age,” she said. “This is not something we want to discuss, so sex education is also off the table.”

Read the rest here

$76 trillion to push GREEN agenda thru United Nations, will bring in One World Order under Agenda 21

Vodpod videos no longer available.

$76 trillion to push GREEN agenda thru United N…, posted with vodpod

World needs $1.9tn a year for green technology: UN

Energy Tribune has an analysis:

$76 Trillion: UN’s Cost of “Going Green” Soars
By Peter C Glover
Posted on Jul. 15, 2011

According to the UN’s report and press release (these are actually published by their Geneva Office), “humankind” needs to stump up around $76 trillion – that’s trillion – over the next 40 years. That is, if the world is to achieve the Global Bureaucracy-led “great green technological transformation”. This is perhaps the most arrogant, “we know what’s good for the world,” drivel that has ever come out of the UN. And they have done plenty. It is also the most expensive.

Just two years ago the “going green” global cost could be achieved for around $600 billion a year over the next decade. That cost appears to have more than tripled. According to the report, what the world urgently needs is a “scaling up of clean energy technologies” among other things to achieve a “technological overhaul … on the scale of the first industrial revolution”. Not one led by individual capitalistic innovation and brilliance, this one is to be led by strategic UN planning. Now I bet that’s the first time you’ve ever seen “strategic” and “UN planning” in the same sentence? There’s a good reasons for that – as a closer look at assertions in the survey clarify.

When you get to the nitty-gritty of the report, the full panoply UN-speak comes into its own. What the authors mean by “going green” is not just more investment in “clean energy”. The move will, it claims, help put an “end to poverty” (what, all of it?), world hunger, the “catastrophic impacts of climate change” (which are?) and “environmental degradation” (whatever that is). Eradicating world hunger and poverty have been rolled into the fight against climate change. We learn that “about 40 percent of humanity, or 2.7 billion people, rely on traditional biomass, such as wood, dung and charcoal, for their energy needs. And 20 percent have no electricity, mainly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.” The report authors demand, “much greater economic progress” in the war on climate change which, it is asserted, will cure these historic ills.

But, just as you can’t keep a good man down, neither can you keep a bad bureaucracy of social engineers from trying to spend a whole lotta someone else’s money. What the UN report does is set the agenda for the UN’s 2012 ‘jet-fest’ Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro. With the conference in mind, Rob Vos, lead author of the report, states, “Business as usual is not an option.” Vos isn’t referring to a wealth of UN and political dignitaries flying down to Rio for a spot of R ‘n R at the five star hotels, you understand. Vos means that the rest of the world – conference attendees and UN frequent mile accumulators exempt, it appears – just can’t go on jetting around emitting tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere and taking vacations, especially to long haul destinations such as…er, Rio, for instance.

Though the report demands a push towards the “green economy” it acknowledges there is no actual agreed definition as to what it is. Even so, the “green economy” is billed grandiosely as “the new paradigm” being “based on the conviction that the benefits of investing in environmental sustainability outweigh the cost of not doing so.” De-coded: there ought to be no ‘debt ceiling’ consideration here, just hand over the greenbacks and we’ll get the job done. Who’s going to pick up the tab? “One half,” says the report “would have to be realized in developing countries.” In case you forgot, that’s a mere $38 trillion in donations to go to the developing world. Even for UN bureaucrats all this is over the top. It seems that they have not heard of the Greek and now the Italian spending above the means crises let alone the debates in the United States, bound to leave a historic impact.

And, just for good measure, if emissions targets cannot be met, then “caps on energy consumption … may be necessary” which, the report admits, “may not be very appealing”. True. Especially to the millions condemned to fuel poverty and likely to die of cold as a direct result.

There is a major irony here. If eradicating world hunger and poverty were genuine UN goals, then the same coal-fired, cheap electricity generating first industrial revolution would do for “South Asia” and “sub-Saharan Africa” what it did for the rest of the world. But that would simply require a combination of cheap electricity and the free market to do for the people of Asia and Africa precisely what it did for us in the West. And it would require the UN’s unelected oligarchy to butt out, bureaucratic plans and all.

But we all know, that’s not gonna happen.

Not when the UN perceives a unique opportunity to ride the populist “clean energy” wave and collect a cool $76 trillion+ to fund its enhanced status as a one world ‘wind-assisted’ government. Something the UN’s Agenda 21 – its other less well known environment-led “strategic plan” – makes only too clear. Founded at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also in Rio, the UN Agenda 21 aims are rooted, as the 2011 report confirms, entirely in the “precautionary principle”. Decoded: it doesn’t matter what the real science on climate change is, we should spend the cash to fight it ‘just in case’.

How arrogant and how insidious from people purporting to work for the public good.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Eugenics and Population Control are a favorite of the Environmentalist and Climate Change crowd along with the UN….

Case in point, Climate Change Guru, Al Gore, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution.

He offered some ideas about what might be done for females in the name of stabilizing population growth. (h/t Daily Caller) (YOUTUBE REMOVED THE VID)
Vodpod videos no longer available.

Gore promoting fewer children to curb pollution, posted with vodpod

then I found it again here:

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,” Gore said. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

“You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women,” he said. “And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”

This is another attempt by the ELITES to PUSH POPULATION CONTROL And EUGENICS in the name of Climate Change and Global Warming:

How will they do this? through a newly formed GREEN ARMY…. UK’s Guardian is reporting (July 2011) That in a special meeting of the United Nations security council is due to consider whether to expand its mission to keep the peace in an era of climate change. There has been talk, meanwhile, of a new environmental peacekeeping force – green helmets – which could step into conflicts caused by shrinking resources…The Pentagon and other military establishments have long recognized climate change as a “threat multiplier” with the potential to escalate existing conflicts, and create new disputes as food, water, and arable land become increasingly scarce. “Repainting blue helmets into green might be a strong signal – but would dealing with the consequences of climate change – say in precarious regions – be really very different from the tasks the blue helmets already perform today?” Germany’s ambassador to the UN, Peter Wittig, wrote in the Huffington .

Here is what the PREFACE to the “World Economic And Social Survey” by the UN states, “The world faces important decisions on how we generate energy and manage our natural
assets—choices with implications that will reverberate for generations to come. Against a backdrop of a rising global population and unceasing pressure on the natural environment, this 2011 edition of the World Economic and Social Survey can guide our collective efforts to achieve a much-needed technological transformation to a greener, cleaner global economy.The past two decades have seen considerable economic growth, particularly in the emerging economies. Hundreds of millions of people have risen from poverty—in Asia, Latin America and, increasingly, in Africa. But with global population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050,we need to accelerate the pace of productive economic expansion. At the same time, this growth must be balanced with respect for the human and natural capital that is its foundation, lest we risk profound and potentially irreversible changes in the planet’s ability to sustain progress…” Later in the report, “Reducing the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with growing and increasingly urban populations will require drastic changes in consumption patterns, transportation systems, residential and building infrastructure, and water and sanitation systems”…and…”developing countries still face much higher birth rates relative to mortality rates, coupled with the slower income growth and, as a result, see much faster population growth (figure I.4).4 This lopsided distribution of income and
population has aggravated the environmental crisis in many ways…”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

And in February of 1970 Alan Guttmacher was interviewed by the Baltimore Magazine and said this
“ Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

John Holdron – Obama’s Science Czar told us this Global Warming Strategy would be used:

After researching eugenics and I reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be divesting. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecaster a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

“Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

In a CNS News video interview, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Fre…, posted with vodpod

___________________________________________________________

MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
__________________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

“We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

“Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

“The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the status of a credo.”

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).
___________________________________________________________

The RICH/POOR Gap

In a 1992 Cambridge Press Publication Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future Prospects , cosponsored by the Stockholm Environment Institute, John P. Holdren wrote a 52 page prologue called “The Transition to Costlier Energy”. In it, he repeats his long-cherished vision of a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

From page 36 onward:
“(…) the population can’t be frozen. Indeed, short of a catastrophe, it can hardly be levelled off below 9 billion. Indeed, without a global effort at population limitation far exceeding anything that has materialized so far, the population of the planet could soar to 14 billion or more by the year 2100.”

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

“What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.”

__________________________________________________________________________

FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.”

____________________________________________________________________

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION:

In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”
“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

“A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

____________________________________________________________

MENTOR: HARRISON BROWN

Paul Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

INFANTICIDE:

Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked. ”

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.

__________________________________________________________________

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

In 2009, US Supreme Court Justice , Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that “at the time Roe was decided I thought it was to get rid of populations we don’t want to have too many of”

Just who are these Populations to be De-Devloped Watch this documentary on eugenics : Maafa21 and find out:

READ Full CNS News story here
____________________________________________________________

Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.

Obama’s White House Rural Council – Power grab by White House?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Obama’s White House World Council – Power grab …, posted with vodpod

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 09, 2011
Obama Administration Establishes http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/09/obama-administration-establishes-white-house-rural-council-strengthen-ru to Strengthen Rural Communities

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The White House today announced the establishment of the first White House Rural Council. While rural communities face challenges, they also present economic potential. To address these challenges, build on the Administration’s rural economic strategy, and improve the implementation of that strategy, the President signed an Executive Order establishing the White House Rural Council.

“Strong rural communities are key to a stronger America,” said President Barack Obama. “That’s why I’ve established the White House Rural Council to make sure we’re working across government to strengthen rural communities and promote economic growth.”

The White House Rural Council will coordinate programs across government to encourage public-private partnerships to promote further economic prosperity and quality of life in rural communities nationwide. Chaired by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the Council will be responsible for providing recommendations for investment in rural areas and will coordinate Federal engagement with a variety of rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, and state, local, and tribal governments.

“Rural America makes significant contributions to the security, prosperity, and economic strength of our country,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “The Rural Council announced by President Obama shows his continued focus on promoting economic opportunity, creating jobs, and enhancing the quality of life for those who live in rural America. Together with the rest of the Obama administration, USDA has worked to support families and businesses in rural communities so that their success will pay dividends for all Americans.”

In the coming months, the White House Rural Council will focus on job creation and economic development by increasing the flow of capital to rural areas, promoting innovation, expanding digital and physical networks, and celebrating opportunity through America’s natural resources. The Council will begin discussing key factors for growth, including:

* Jobs: Improve job training and workforce development in rural America
* Agriculture: Expand markets for agriculture, including regional food systems and exports
* Access to Credit: Increase opportunity by expanding access to capital in rural communities and fostering local investment
* Innovation: Promote the expansion of biofuels production capacity and community based renewable energy projects
* Networks: Develop high-growth regional economies by capitalizing on inherent regional strengths
* Health Care: Improve access to quality health care through expansion of health technology systems
* Education: Increase post-secondary enrollment rates and completion for rural students
* Broadband: Support the President’s plan to increase broadband opportunities in rural America
* Infrastructure: Coordinate investment in critical infrastructure
* Ecosystem markets: Expanding opportunities for conservation, outdoor opportunities and economic growth on working lands and public lands

Since taking office, President Obama’s Administration has taken significant steps to improve the lives of rural Americans and has provided broad support for rural communities. The Obama Administration has set goals of modernizing infrastructure by providing broadband access to 10 million Americans, expanding educational opportunities for students in rural areas, and providing affordable health care. In the long term, these unparalleled rural investments will help ensure that America’s rural communities are repopulating, self-sustaining, and thriving economically.