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.com/ search for "UN Takeover of the child" or "unicef".
-- 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=101...rch=unicef For years, school children have been asked to sacrifice on October 31-to collect change for poor kids overseas rather than candy for themselves. If your school takes part in this campaign, here are some articles you should read. UNICEF is involved in activities that may surprise you (some of the links are to old, and have been unfortunately deleted):
The truth about UNICEF http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10105
Child sex book given out at U.N. summit - Washington Times http://www.familyaction.org/Artic...x-book.htm
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 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section...id=3597373
Several links are provided for you at the bottom of the thread.
I'm sorry, that is simply not how citations work.
I guess we're going to have to go through this step by step.
You need to provide a specific citation for each of the following claims:
1. "In both Korea and Vietnam, our military efforts were nullified by UN support for the Communist side."
2. "All key military decisions during the Korean War were made known to the UN’s Military General Staff Committee"
3. "which was headed by a Soviet official"
4. "who promptly made them available to Communist forces in Korea."
5. "During the Vietnam War, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) provided millions of dollars in aid to Communist Vietnam"
6. "much of which was given directly to the Viet Cong guerrilla forces."
That is just for one paragraph. I'm willing to believe that some of these things are true (although the bit about the Korean War has virtually nothing to do with UNICEF), but bluntly you have no credibility to convince me. You need to provide reliable sources that back up your claims.
I want to emphasize again: reliable sources. Some blog about "feminazism"? Most likely not a reliable source.
It is convenient that so many of your sources "have been deleted", though. Perhaps you should see if they are available on Archive.org.
No twisting of UNICEF policies here.... That's how sick they really are....
I had no trouble coming up with several examples of you either deliberately twisting or severely misunderstanding a number of policies. To wit:
"If every child belongs to UNICEF" completely misses the point of the motto. And by the way, that has never been the motto of UNICEF; only of the US committee for UNICEF (according to that committee's president[ed.gov]). The actual motto of UNICEF is (right now) "For every child/ Health, Education, Equality, Protection/ Advance Humanity" (/ to mark line breaks). A lot of anti-UNICEF sites seem to confuse the two; is that where you get your information?
"assumes that the state, not the parents, is the primary custodian of children" and then quote someone explaining what is actually meant; that the state is the custodian of the rights of children, just as it is the custodian of the rights of adults.
"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." (bluntly no, this is an obvious non sequitur) which is "supported" by a quote allegedly from a child from El Salvador. It may well be the case that parents present a major threat to the rights of their children in a country where "[r]andom and organized violent crime is endemic", that has "one of the highest homicide rates in the world", and where "[b]oth violent and petty crimes are prevalent" (US State Dept[state.gov]). I don't know, I'm not an expert on El Salvador and don't have any real reaosn to believe that video actually exists as you claim it does.
"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." when in fact Article 13 (full text of the CRC is available from UNICEF[unicef.org]) explicitly bars such action by the government (unless you severely misrepresent its meaning). Parents in your scenario would be immune from any action on moral grounds (13(b)) and by the fact that the CRC is binding on governments, not individuals.
"More: Article 14 asserts ... Article 15 refers to ..." seem to ignore that both of those articles explicitly state (in the first two words of each) that they apply only to states that are party to the CRC (which is to say, again, governments) and have no effect whatsoever on what parents may do. If you need a list of definitions of key terms, such as "state party", one is available from the UNICEF link above.
I could go on and on, but the pattern is clear. Your descriptions of the UNICEF mission and policies are so fundamentally wrong that they must reflect either disingenuous malice or complete and utter non-understanding. My suspicion is that you have in fact never even read the Convention on the Rights of the Child and that your claims on how evil it is are based entirely on second-hand (or third-hand, or fourth-hand...) descriptions you have read.
Quite frankly, examining these misrepresentations has only convinced me further that you have no credibility to speak on this topic.
IIIIIIIIIIiiiiii am NOT speaking on this topic.
I did not write any of the investigative material.
I am not an investigative reporter. I am only posting what I've read, from reliable sources. If YOU want to investigate every point of every paragraph I've posted, be my guest.
"All key military decisions during the Korean War were made known to the UN’s Military General Staff Committee"
There is no such thing as the "UN Military General Staff Committee"
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 word "custodian" does not appear anywhere in the Convention On The Rights of the Child document. It specifically states the opposite: "States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents"
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.
That's total rubbish. If this were true, the Bill of Rights would be un-Constitutional. Like the US Constitution, the UN document states that governments will protect rights, but it doesn't "grant" them.
Monies from UNFPA’s budget (which ran $136 million in 1985) have aided China’s population control program
But there's no evidence, or even suggestions, that the UN programs had any involvement in forced sterilizations or abortions. You're just tossing out guilt by association.
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.
The document says nothing about homosexuality. As you said, Article 28 recognizes the right to education of children. Are you against children being educated?
That page specifically notes the Every Child Is Our Child is the name of a program run by the Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office, not the motto of UNICEF. The groups are related only insofar as they are both connected to the UN. The UU-UNO is an NGO[uu-uno.org] that works with the UN, but is not run by the UN.
Progress, but you get no credit for just running a random Google search and linking to something published by "The Catholic Resource Network" (about which I know nothing) that cites a print source that went under 12 years ago and isn't available on the web, and a NY Times summary that does not disagree with your claims but only supports a handful of them.
Firstly, this does literally nothing to support your claims or refute anything I have said disproving them. At issue is an obvious misinterpretation of what it means to be "the custodian" of someone's rights, and an attempt to construct all kinds of crazy theories on top of that.
Secondly, this is apparently the source from which you plagiarized (and have yet to credit) several paragraphs of text. That makes it not a great source to cite as a reference.
Thirdly, it is essentially the worst source you could cite on this topic. It is an obviously biased book, and the fact that it is the source of several severe misstatements of fact that I have already pointed out to you only dig the hole deeper. It also suggests that, as I had feared, those misstatements originate with malice rather than mere ignorance.
What of it? Yes, that is apparently what he said according to the sometimes-reliable Heritage Foundation. Does it reinforce any of your claims about how evil UNICEF is? Not a bit.
The problem comes from this wild misinterpretation: "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."
That completely misses the point. The CRC is based on the philosophy that rights are to be protected by the government. That is the meaning of "custodian". This is exactly the philosophy on which our own government is built. In fact, it is the basis of the "social contract" theory of government that can be traced to John Locke: the idea that people agree to give up some of their rights in order to get along with one another, with the promise that the government will act in their interests and protect their rights.
Anyone that would claim such an idea is "at odds" with the three American "core" government documents either knows nothing about those documents, knows nothing about political science, or is a bold-faced liar.
Do any of those implicate UNICEF? No? Then the entire thing is a complete red herring with no relevance. The only connection between UNICEF and UNFPA is that they are UN organizations with vaguely similar goals. They are administrated completely separately.
None of the text attributed to him appears anywhere on that page.
I think that's more than enough for me.
You think wrong, if you actually want to demonstrate that UNICEF is bad. So far you have failed to persuasively demonstrate that even one of the charges that you leveled at UNICEF is true.
The closest you came was the Jos Verbeek claim, and even that you provided only weak evidence to support. And that was an apparently isolated incident, not an act of the UNICEF organization itself. That happened 20 years ago.
I am not an investigative reporter. I am sure you could do a better research job than me.
Evidently, since it took me about 5 minutes to find a reasonably reliable[heritage.org], freely available source on the Verbeek thing that actually provides some details.
It is your job to prove your accusations. The burden of proof is on you. "I am not an investigative reporter" is a piss-weak excuse. Until you can provide some substance here, one can only conclude that you are completely wrong.
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.
Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
that explains the features of our site.