UNICEF --- good or bad?
Babies being helped by wonderful, caring people?
Or.... Did you know (I did not author any of the following. My comments are in brackets.):
-- The motto for UNICEF – the United Nations Children's Fund – is "every child is our child."
Go here for more info: http://thenewamerican.
-- In both Korea and Vietnam, our military efforts were nullified by UN support for the Communist side. All key military decisions during the Korean War were made known to the UN’s Military General Staff Committee, which was headed by a Soviet official who promptly made them available to Communist forces in Korea. During the Vietnam War, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) provided millions of dollars in aid to Communist Vietnam, much of which was given directly to the Viet Cong guerrilla forces.
-- In 1987, it was discovered that a group of people associated with the Belgian committee of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) had an interesting perspective on the UNICEF motto. In that year, UNICEF official Jos Verbeek and 17 others were arrested by Belgian police on charges of "inciting minors to debauchery." The organization's Brussels office building had been used to develop pornographic photographs of children, many of them of North African descent. More than 19,000 such photos were eventually collected by Belgian police, along with a mailing list of 400 names in 15 countries which had been prepared on the UNICEF office computer. If every child belongs to UNICEF,why shouldn't UNICEF officials use them as they see fit?
-- The Convention On The Rights of the Child (a UNICEF brainstorm) fundamentally assumes that the state, not the parents, is the primary custodian of children. “The state is the custodian of the rights of children,” declared acting UNICEF director Dr. Richard Jolley at the 1995 UN Social Summit in Copenhagen. “The state is the guardian of the law. Who but the state can enforce the law and protect the rights of individuals, including children?” If the state is the primary protector of children, it follows that parents are the greatest and most constant threat to the well-being of the state’s children. This point was made forcefully in a presentation at the 2001 Special Session on Children at UN headquarters. During a video presentation at that session, a Salvadoran youngster declared: “Parents are the principal violators of our rights!”
-- More on the "convention": But what of parents wishing, for instance, to regulate a child’s consumption of movies, videos, Internet sites, and other media? The text makes no provision for this parental role. Strictly applied, Article 13 of the Convention would permit a national government to censor a child’s access to “anti-government” websites, yet authorize action against a parent refusing to let a youngster download cyberporn.
-- More: Article 14 asserts that the child’s “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” must be recognized, which — as applied in the home — has troubling implications for parents desiring to pass their religious convictions on to their young (or, for that matter, for parents seeking to discourage involvement in the occult). Article 15 refers to a child’s right to “freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly” — freedoms that diligent parents concerned about the quality of a child’s friends and associates must occasionally infringe upon.
-- More: Parents who practice spanking and other forms of physical discipline run afoul of Article 19, which supposedly protects children from “all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse....” UNICEF’s Dr. Jolley, asked about whether the Convention forbids spanking, replied: “There are some people, I think, that want to maintain the right of being able to beat their children, which the Convention discourages.” Following Britain’s ratification of the Convention, reported the January 28, 1995 issue of The Guardian of London, the UN’s “children’s rights” committee demanded that the British government “ban corporal punishment in private schools and … outlaw ‘chastisement’ of children at home.”
-- According to the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Article 28 of the Convention, which cites a “right to education,” mandates government action to suppress expression of “homophobic” sentiments in public school classrooms. Claiming that children have the right to enjoy “the highest attainable standard of health,” Article 24 can be employed to purge “homophobes” from the medical profession. The “privacy” right asserted under Article 16, the NCLR insists, requires that school counselors withhold from parents anything they might learn about their child’s sexual orientation or practices. Another NCLR report, Legal Challenges Facing Lesbian and Gay Youth, recounts how the organization used the “rights” outlined in the UN Convention to arrange the “divorce” of a lesbian teenager from her mother, and her 1992 adoption by a lesbian couple in San Francisco. Further, homosexual organizations in Canada are pushing that the age of sexual consent be lowered to 14, based on the "the convention" Canada ratified.
--Remember, "the Convention" is the brainstorm of UNICEF.....
-- The Convention is a lengthy, complex document comprised of 54 articles dealing with adoption, education, child labor, child pornography, child abuse, prenatal and postnatal health care for women, family reunification, and many other issues. Although it is replete with rhetoric about "rights" and "freedom" and noble-sounding appeals for the protection of children, from the standpoint of American constitutional law it is fundamentally flawed. Like the UN Charter and many UN conventions addressing "rights," this Convention on the Rights of the Child is based on the philosophy that rights are granted by governments (not God), and it is, therefore, completely at odds with the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Like the UN Charter and the Soviet Constitution, it views rights not as God-given and unalienable, but as government-given and conditional. This view of the origin of rights is completely incompatible with liberty. For, if one accepts the premise that rights come from government, then one must accept the corollary that government is entitled to circumscribe, withhold, or even cancel those rights. This concept of rights was stated by Andrei Vishinsky, Stalin’s chief prosecutor and chairman of the Soviet Supreme Court, during debate on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 at the United Nations. Said Vishinsky: "The rights of human beings cannot be considered outside the prerogatives of governments, and the very understanding of human rights is a governmental concept.
-- A sister organization of UNICEF is UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). China scholar Steven Mosher, who personally witnessed the harshness of Chinese population policies in the rural Chinese village where he lived and worked on his doctoral studies during 1979-80, noted that U.S. "tax dollars were providing about 25 percent of the annual budget for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. Monies from UNFPA’s budget (which ran $136 million in 1985) have aided China’s population control program.
-- For those of you not familiar with China's forced population control, here's a brief education: Christopher Wren reported in the New York Times that thousands of Chinese women were being "rounded up and forced to have abortions." He described women "locked in detention cells or hauled before mass rallies and harangued into consenting to abortions." He told of "vigilantes [who] abducted pregnant women on the streets and hauled them off, sometimes handcuffed or trussed, to abortion clinics," and of "aborted babies which were ... crying when they were born." Michele Vink wrote in the Wall Street Journal of women who were "handcuffed, tied with ropes or placed in pig’s baskets" for their forced trips to the abortion clinics. According to Steven Mosher, the People’s Republic Press was openly speaking of the "butchering, drowning, and leaving to die of female infants and the maltreating of women who have given birth to girls." [YUK! And we give these guys "Most Favored Nation" status??!! Are we crazy?!]
-- Perhaps the most damning indictment of the UN’s so-called aid programs has come from author Graham Hancock, who would probably describe himself politically as a liberal. After examining repeated cases of the most destructive and unconscionable policies, he wrote in Lords of Poverty: "UNICEF, UNHCR, and the World Food Programme et al. do indeed deliver relief supplies during emergencies; the quality, timeliness and relevance of these items, however, as we have seen ... often leave a great deal to be desired."30 The totality of the record of these multilateral agencies led him to the following very negative and bitter conclusion: "Of course, the ugly reality is that most poor people in most poor countries most of the time never receive or even make contact with aid in any tangible shape or form: whether it is present or absent, increased or decreased, are thus issues that are simply irrelevant to the ways in which they conduct their daily lives. After the multi-billion-dollar "financial flows" involved have been shaken through the sieve of over-priced and irrelevant goods that must be bought in the donor countries, filtered again in the deep pockets of hundreds of thousands of foreign experts and aid agency staff, skimmed off by dishonest commission agents, and stolen by corrupt Ministers and Presidents, there is really very little left to go around. This little, furthermore, is then used thoughtlessly, or maliciously, or irresponsibly by those in power — who have no mandate from the poor, who do not consult with them and who are utterly indifferent to their fate. Small wonder, then, that the effects of aid are so often vicious and destructive for the most vulnerable members of human society."
-- regarding the "TRICK-OR-TREAT" scam for UNICEF: http://all.org/article.php?id=
The truth about UNICEF http://www.all.org/article.php?id=
Child sex book given out at U.N. summit - Washington Times
UNICEF Halloween fund backs abortion - Zenit News Service
UNICEF: Friend or foe? - The abortion connection
UNICEF: Guilty as charged - The documentation
Vatican cuts off UNICEF - 1996 news release
UNICEF has strayed from its original mandate
UNICEF memo reveals intentions for child summit
UNICEF opposes parental notification law in New Zealand
-- more info:
UNICEF Devolves http://www.nationalrev
UNICEF Another United Nations Boondoggle
Hype, Nonsense, and Feminazism: Your UNICEF Dollars at Work
UNICEF and HALLOWEEN (from the Knights of Columbus)
UNICEF’s ‘Rights’ Focus Is All Wrong
For more info on the UN read:
"The United Nations Exposed" http://aobs-store.com/store/product3.html
Here are a few more links:
"every child is our child" from the UN office website:
another "every child is our child" from the UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador
from EWTN on Unicef and porno:
from The New York Times on Unicef and the porno scandal:
from "Wake Up and Smell the Truth" book on "the state is the custodian of the rights of children":
from "Get Us Out of the United Nations" on "the state is the custodian of the rights of children":
From the coalition on the Physical Punishment of Children and Youth reviewing Canada's ratification of the Convention, in regards to spanking:
From the National Child Protection Clearinghouse in Australia reviewing Australia's ratification of the Convention, in regards to spanking:
Vishinsky's comment "The rights of human beings cannot be considered outside the prerogatives of governments, and the very understanding of human rights is a governmental concept.":
On the UNFPA from the Catholic Herald:
On the UNFPA from the BBC:
On China's forced abortion policy from the New York Times:
On China's forced abortion policy written by Steven Mosher of the Population research Institute:
On China's forced abortion policy by Michele Vink of the Wall Street Journal:
On Graham Hancock's quote:
p.s. links should all work now.