The United Nations has openly proclaimed that the world’s increasing population is a cause for concern. Likewise, the UN has advocated for its Agenda 21 program that seeks to bring about “sustainable development.”
On February 10, The New American’s William Jasper wrote of Agenda 21:
The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 is yet another means to achieve ultimate control. Additionally, as noted by LewRockwell.com, a key component of Agenda 21’s sustainable development is population control, since Agenda 21 seeks to achieve reduced consumption, social equity and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Proponents of Agenda 21 and sustainable development believe every societal decision should be based on environmental impact, including land use, education, and population control.
A United Nations resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly specifically designed to implement Agenda 21 reads:
…. population growth rates have been declining globally, largely as a result of expanded basic education and health care. That trend is projected to lead to a stable world population in the middle of the twenty-first century… The current decline in population growth rates must be further promoted through national and international policies that promote economic development, social development, environmental protection, and poverty eradication, particularly the further expansion of basic education, with full and equal access for girls and women, and health care, including reproductive health care, including both family planning and sexual health, consistent with the report of the International Conference on Population and Development.
Likewise, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division Policy brief began with the statement, “What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”
The same theme was prevalent in the 2009 World Population Report released by the United Nations Population Fund entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate.” That document made a number of frightening assertions:
- "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 descendants. 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."
Many of our own lawmakers and members of the Obama administration have openly called for population control. Former vice president Al Gore, for example, made the following statement regarding population control:
"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. 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. 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."
Maurice Strong, head of the United Nations Environmental Program, alluded to population control and more when he stated in 1990, “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
President Obama’s Science Adviser John Holdren wrote a book in 1977 called Ecoscience in which he indicated support for forced abortions, sterilization through infertility drugs or through the nation’s drinking water or food, having babies seized from single mothers or teen mothers and given away to couples, requiring that “people who contribute to social deterioration…be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” (i.e. more forced abortions or sterilizations), and creating a transnational “Planetary Regime” that controls the global economy and dictates the details of American lives by use of an armed international police force.
Holdren went so far as to say that the United States Constitution permits population control, “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.”
Population control has also found support amongst other prominent Americans, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sierra Club Director David Brower, Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger, and David Rockefeller.
Given the United Nation Population Fund’s push for decreased population, and the surprising level of support it has received within our own federal government, groups like the John Birch Society are pushing to defund the UNPF. According to the JBS:
The propaganda from the UNFPA (known as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities from 1969 to 1987) indicates that its programs do nothing more than “reduce poverty and ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.” And how does the UNFPA accomplish such lofty-sounding goals? By promoting “family planning,” access to abortions, and instituting sex-ed programs, especially for youth.…
So, instead of promoting policies that would delay marriage and childbearing for the poverty-stricken of many countries, the UNFPA encourages promiscuity. Instead of abstinence training, a sexual revolution is advanced. And, instead of telling teens the truth about free sex, they hype the glories of condom use that afford little or no protection from sexually transmitted diseases rampant in many third world countries. Shockingly, the UN’sanswer to gender discrimination and sex selection brought about by the one-child policy is “safe” abortions.
Fortunately, the U.S. House of Representatives Relations Committee has introduced HR 2059, which defunds the United Nations Population Fund. The legislation has 83 cosponsors and is said to save taxpayers $400 million.
What’s clear is that the American people must act quickly as civilized nations are beginning to act in accordance with the UN’s drive for population control. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Daily Mail reports that thousands of “abnormal babies” are being selectively aborted each year. This is expected behavior in a world where population control takes center stage.