Tag Archives: United Nations

UN Human Rights Council Affirms Traditional Values

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

(GENEVA – C-FAM) Delegations from European Countries and the United States suffered a setback last week when the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution affirming a positive link between traditional values and human rights. The European and U.S. delegations view traditional values as threats to women, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual persons.

This is the third resolution on traditional values to pass since 2009. Russia successfully pressed the resolution forward despite attempts by other UN member states to stifle their initiative.

The current resolution, tabled by Russia and co-authored by more than 60 states (not all members of the Council), affirms that traditional values common to all humanity have a positive role in the promotion and protection of human rights. It states that “a better understanding and appreciation of traditional values shared by all humanity and embodied in universal human rights instruments contribute to promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide.”

Echoing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it stresses “that human rights derive from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person” and recognizes the positive role of the family, community and educational institutions in promoting human rights, calling on states to “strengthen this role through appropriate positive measures.”

European countries and the United States voiced opposition to the concept of traditional values when a resolution under that title was first proposed by Russia in 2009. They also voted against a resolution requesting a report on the interconnectedness of traditional values and human rights from the Advisory Committee of the Council in March last year. When that measure passed, they took control of the Advisory Committee’s efforts to produce a report that was contrary to the intention of the resolution.

The European and U.S. delegations repeatedly complained that “traditional values” is a vague concept used to justify violence and discrimination against women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) persons. But having failed to sway enough countries with that argument, they sought to halt the resolution by asking the Council to wait for the report from the Advisory Committee, the same one they originally opposed.

Russia tabled the resolution anyway, confident that it would have the necessary votes. The resolution was adopted with 25 in favor, 15 against, and 7 abstentions.

Upon its adoption, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement declaring “The Russian Federation, together with the opinion allies, will continue promoting the idea of [the] inseparable connection of human rights and traditional moral values in the Human Rights Council.”

Noting that “there were states that voted against the draft (in particular, the USA and European Union)” Russia lamented that “(the) negative position of these countries, their unwillingness to work at the text and fanciful arguments against the resolution draft cause regret.”

Last year President Obama ordered all federal agencies dealing with U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance to promote LGBT rights. Support for traditional values is deeply troublesome to LGBT groups, as the Gay Star News reports. They are worried it will be used to defend the natural family, and fear they will be unable to de-criminalize homosexuality worldwide.

Stefano Gennarini is Director of the Center for Legal Studies at the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) located in both New York City and Washington, D.C. Gennarini’s article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM.

US Experts Testify on Dangers of Disabilities Treaty

By Lisa Correnti

(WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM) A panel of experts warned U.S. lawmakers this week that the UN Disabilities treaty could threaten the rights of parents and advance abortion rights.

“This treaty… would allow unelected bureaucrats in Switzerland to determine the meaning of the words ‘disability’ and ‘sexual reproductive health,’ said Congressman Jeff Duncan following a briefing to the House Sovereignty Caucus. “Such ambiguity could lead to frivolous litigation and advancing abortion as a ‘human right.’”

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) passed the Senate Foreign Affairs subcommittee in July. An amendment by Senator Marco Rubio clarifying that the treaty cannot be used to advance abortion was supported by all Republicans senators but was defeated when all Democratic senators voted against it.

Dr. Susan Yoshihara explained to the Caucus how “sexual and reproductive health” was inserted in the treaty despite a lack of consensus. The Director of the International Organizations Research Group at C-FAM participated in the UN negotiations on CRPD.

“In order to get this term into the Disabilities Treaty, proponents had to circumvent the objections of 23 nations, resorting to such tactics as secret meetings and venues where not all delegations were allowed” she said.

Some U.S. senators support the treaty on the belief that pro-life protections exist since the term “reproductive health” is mentioned as a category of non-discrimination and not as a right. Dr. Yoshihara cautioned against this false sense of security.

“This should not allay the fears of pro-life lawmakers or make them think that this treaty will not be used to advance a right to abortion,” she said. “The Women’s Convention, CEDAW, never mentions abortion or ‘reproductive health’ nor does ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], but their committees have pressured more than 90 countries over 120 times to liberalize abortion.”

Treaty proponents say “reservations” agreed to by the U.S. Senate will protect against any problems. The experts, however, called reservations inadequate. Dr. Yoshihara recalled a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Roper) in which the court “cited a portion of the ICCPR that the United States had specifically rejected in a reservation.”

Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, warned that the CRPD threatens the rights of parents of special needs children. “Government agents, and not parents, are being given the authority to decide all educational and treatment issues for disabled children.”

“Signing the treaty is an empty gesture” said Steven Groves with the Heritage Foundation. “Current U.S. law meets or exceeds the provisions of the Convention, and mere membership in the Convention will not convince the international community that America protects the rights of its disabled citizens,” he continued.

Concerns about the CRPD were expressed by the Holy See delegation when the UN adopted it in 2006. Explaining why they could not support it, the delegation stated, “It is surely tragic that…the same Convention created to protect persons with disabilities from all discrimination in the exercise of their rights, may be used to deny the very basic right to life of disabled unborn persons.”

The U.S. does not need to ratify the treaty to gain moral authority, noted Rep. Duncan and his co-chair of the Sovereignty Caucus Rep. Doug Lamborn. “America is already one of the world’s leaders in advancing the cause of those with disabilities,” said Lamborn.

Resistance to the treaty is growing. A letter from congressmen urging senators to reject the CRPD now has 49 signatures.

Lisa Correnti is Director of Operations at C-FAM. Her article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/).

Moscow Bans LGBT Parade

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

(GENEVA – C-FAM) Likely the Russians are furious. Last year the Russian government initiated a process at the Human Rights Council in Geneva that was supposed to lead to a resolution touting traditional values. They rediscovered what they likely already knew, that such debates at the UN are fraught with danger, particularly for those who want to support traditional values. The constellation of forces hostile to traditional values is large and aggressive.

The Russians had hoped their resolution could find a positive link between traditional values and human rights generally. A drafting committee offered a preliminary study last February that was acceptable to pro-family delegates. But opposition quickly formed. Homosexual groups were particularly vocal in opposing the draft report. Opponents charged that the draft failed to address what they consider to be a conflict between traditional values and human rights.

The preliminary study emphasized universal traditional values shared by all people, in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It highlighted the connections between traditional values and human rights, maintaining that the normative force of human rights has its roots in the moral force of traditional values. It contained explicit references to the right to life, the role of the family in society, as well as major religions.

But the United States and some European countries objected that the rights of women and homosexual and transgender persons are frequently undermined by traditional values and religion, and that something should be said in the study about the conflict. The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) joined the criticisms.

Following this objection, the Chinese expert on the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council (HRC), Chung Chinsung, re-wrote the study, omitting positive references to the right to life, the family, and religion. The new draft study was discussed last week in Geneva, and countries, experts, and NGOs that had complained were overall satisfied with the changes.

The new draft drops the universalistic approach. In fact, the new draft does not even recognize the existence of universal traditional values, dismissing the quest for universality as a red herring. Instead, it points out that multiple traditional values exist, and they are constantly evolving. Some are consonant with human rights. But others are not.

This new approach puts human rights squarely above and against traditional values. In the draft study, the Advisory Committee declares which traditional values are in conflict with human rights, and which ones are not.

The new draft makes the case that traditional values undermine the rights of women and minorities. It finds that certain traditions and religions spread “stereotypes about femininity, sexual orientation and the role and status of women in society.” It also lists some “best practices” to show how, in some circumstances, traditional values can reinforce human rights. None of these examples are from western countries. In fact, the new draft finds that “traditional and cultural values in Western countries propagate harmful practices, such as domestic violence.”

The new study was scheduled to appear during the September session of the HRC. But it clearly requires some further polishing, and the Committee has asked the HRC for more time.

“Gay parades banned in Moscow for 100 years” 17 August 2012

Moscow’s top court has upheld a ban on gay pride marches in the Russian capital for the next 100 years.

Earlier Russia’s best-known gay rights campaigner, Nikolay Alexeyev, had gone to court hoping to overturn the city council’s ban on gay parades.

He had asked for the right to stage such parades for the next 100 years.

He also opposes St Petersburg’s ban on spreading “homosexual propaganda”. The European Court of Human Rights has told Russia to pay him damages.

On Friday he said he would go back to the European Court in Strasbourg to push for a recognition that Moscow’s ban on gay pride marches – past, present and future – was unjust.

The Moscow city government argues that the gay parade would risk causing public disorder and that most Muscovites do not support such an event.

In September, the Council of Europe – the main human rights watchdog in Europe – will examine Russia’s response to a previous European Court ruling on the gay rights issue, Russian media report.

In October 2010 the court said Russia had discriminated against Mr Alexeyev on grounds of sexual orientation. It had considered Moscow’s ban on gay parades covering the period 2006-2008.

This article written by Stefano Gennarini, who is Director of the Center for Legal Studies at the Catholic Family and Human Right Institute (C-FAM), first appeared in FridayFax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM. C-FAM is a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org).

The War Against the Jews

by Efraim Karsh

The sustained anti-Israel de-legitimization campaign is a corollary of the millenarian obsession with the Jews in the Christian and the Muslim worlds. Since Israel is the world’s only Jewish state, and since Zionism is the Jewish people’s national liberation movement, anti-Zionism—as opposed to criticism of specific Israeli policies or actions—means denial of the Jewish right to national self-determination. Such a discriminatory denial of this basic right to only one nation (and one of the few that can trace their corporate identity and territorial attachment to antiquity) while allowing it to all other groups and communities, however new and tenuous their claim to nationhood, is pure and unadulterated anti-Jewish racism, or anti-Semitism as it is commonly known.

By any conceivable standard, Israel has been an extraordinary success story: national rebirth in the ancestral homeland after millennia of exile and dispersion; resuscitation of a dormant biblical language; the creation of a modern, highly educated, technologically advanced, and culturally and economically thriving society, as well as a vibrant liberal democracy in one of the world’s least democratic areas. It is a world leader in agricultural, medical, military, and solar energy technologies, among others; a high-tech superpower attracting more venture capital investment per capita than the United States and Europe; home to one of the world’s best health systems and philharmonic orchestras, as well as to ten Nobel Prize laureates. And so on and so forth.

Why then is Israel the only state in the world whose right to exist is constantly debated and challenged while far less successful countries, including numerous “failed states,” are considered legitimate and incontestable members of the international community? The answer offered by this article is that this pervasive prejudice against Israel, the only Jewish state to exist since biblical times, is a corollary of the millenarian obsession with the Jews in the Christian and the Muslim worlds.

On occasion, notably among devout and/or born again Evangelical Christians, this obsession has manifested itself in admiration and support for the national Jewish resurrection in the Holy Land. In most instances, however, anti-Jewish prejudice and animosity, or anti-Semitism as it is commonly known, has served to exacerbate distrust and hatred of Israel. Indeed, the fact that the international coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the libels against Zionism and Israel, such as the despicable comparisons to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, have invariably reflected a degree of intensity and emotional involvement well beyond the normal level to be expected of impartial observers would seem to suggest that, rather than being a response to concrete Israeli activities, it is a manifestation of long-standing prejudice that has been brought out into the open by the vicissitudes of the conflict.

To read more, click here.

The above excerpt originates from an article by the same title and author as first published on-line by the Middle East Forum, where the author is principal researcher. He is also research professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College London and author, most recently, of Palestine Betrayed (Yale University Press, 2010).

Amnesty International Uses Maternal Deaths to Push for Unrestricted Abortion

By Elizabeth Charnowski

(New York – C-FAM) Amnesty International, a human rights organization that used to be abortion neutral, is now using the problem of maternal mortality to advocate for abortion. In a new report, ostensibly on medical care for maternal health, Amnesty calls on governments to repeal abortion laws and conscience protection for medical workers who may object. They also call for public health systems to train and equip health care providers to perform abortions.

Amnesty’s “Maternal Health is a Human Right” campaign focuses attention on four countries: Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Peru, and the United States. Amnesty argues that maternal mortality will decrease if it is treated as a human rights issue, if costs to health care are covered by governments, and if a right for women to control their reproductive and sex lives is established.

The United States’ maternal mortality ratio is only 21 deaths per 100,000 live births compared to Burkina Faso’s 300 and Sierra Leone’s 890 deaths per 100,000 births.

The Amnesty’s report that in Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, and Peru, that women face death because of inadequate medical conditions and corruption. But then the report goes further arguing that abortion is needed, too.

Even though Amnesty says the United States has the best health care system in the world, the group urges that abortion services be expanded and obstacles eliminated, including what they call racial and cost barriers. They say abortion services are restricted for Native Americans and women on Medicaid since abortions are only paid for by the government in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. These women can still obtain an abortion, but it would not be covered by federal insurance.

Amnesty takes issue with restraints on abortion, including conscience clauses and laws that allow health care providers and institutions to decline to commit an abortion if it is against their religious or moral beliefs.

Elsewhere Amnesty has called for small steps towards the legalization of abortion. The group submitted a report to the UN Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) calling for the legalization of abortion in Mexico for women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest.

According to its official position, “Amnesty International believes that where women’s access to safe and legal abortion services and information is restricted, their fundamental human rights may be at grave risk.”

At the time Amnesty changed its position, many long-time Catholic supports left the group and at least one Vatican Cardinal called upon Catholics no longer to support the group. In the intervening years Amnesty has become an aggressive public campaigner for a right to abortion and even makes the claim that abortion is a human right in international law.

Elizabeth Charnowski is a Blackstone Intern, a wonderful program of the Alliance Defending Freedom, at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). This article was originally published in Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM,a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/).

Governments Fight Back Against CEDAW Committee

By Elizabeth Charnowski

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Countries are fighting back against the CEDAW Committee’s questioning on abortion and maternal mortality as delegates complain about the inaccurate information the Committee relies on and the ideological rigidity of its experts. Committee experts insist abortion decreases maternal mortality, despite conflicting evidence, in order to push countries to change their abortion laws.

The 30th anniversary of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) kicked off the 53nd session of the Committee in New York last week. The Committee is reviewing reports of Indonesia, Guyana, Mexico, and a few other countries.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) along with other pro-life organizations filed an extensive report to the CEDAW Committee focusing on the false correlations between liberalized abortion laws and maternal mortality. That report was outnumbered by reports filed by pro-abortion advocates.

Guyana, Indonesia, and Mexico detailed efforts to reduce maternal mortality. Throughout the session, CEDAW experts relied on arguments submitted by abortion advocates, instead of the data in the ADF or country reports.

Zohra Rasekh, one of the reputed health experts on the committee, questioned Guyana’s Human Services and Social Security Minister Jennifer Webster about reducing maternal mortality. Rasekh was previously an analyst for Population Action International, whose goals include advocating for access to contraception for all women. She stated that Guyana’s high rate of maternal mortality is linked to unsafe abortions, and safe abortions are not available in the country.

Ms. Webster replied that there is no data showing that maternal mortality is related to abortion laws. Moreover, public hospitals in Guyana must provide abortions, and the public health system is completely free. The Committee seemed taken aback by the challenge.

The episode made it into the Guyana Times, which reported the delegation complained about the reliance of experts on “alternative sources” for their data, especially when accurate data was available in their report. Guyanese delegates plan to file an official complaint over the CEDAW Committee’s questioning.

Rasekh questioned the Indonesian delegate on abortion and maternal mortality again relying on inaccurate data. Amnesty International’s report on Indonesia included parallel data, claiming that unsafe abortions account for 5 to 11% of all maternal deaths in the country, and that legalizing abortion would be a “positive step towards combating maternal mortality.”

After the delegate ignored the abortion questions, Rasekh asked again if Indonesia had any intention of changing its abortion laws, specifically to allow for abortion in the case of incest and for women less than 6 weeks pregnant. The delegate defended the laws of her country where abortion is only allowed when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or in the case of rape.

As much as the CEDAW Committee and NGOs insist the maternal mortality rate is linked to abortion, no evidence supports this claim. The ADF report stated data, including a recent Chilean study, that found legalizing abortion does not contribute to maternal mortality rates. Rather, education, increases in health care quality, and improved medical conditions are key to decreasing maternal mortality.

Elizabeth Charnowski writes for C-FAM. This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

Pro-Abortion and Pro-Homosexual Youth Lobby Sent Home Empty-Handed from UN

By Timothy Herrmann

NEW YORK, May 4 (C-FAM) Youth activists arrived at the UN in droves last week in an attempt to hijack the 45th session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) by promoting homosexual rights and abortion. However, countries rejected their demands and produced a fairly balanced outcome document that focuses on more pressing youth concerns like education, employment, health and development.

Sponsored by organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Youth Coalition, and the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC), youth activists flooded the conference floor and were strategically placed on country delegations with the hope of shifting the conference’s focus to sexual and reproductive health of youth and adolescents.

Throughout the week, they lobbied country delegates to place controversial language in the outcome document that would undermine the right and responsibility of parents in the sexual education of their children and include sexual and reproductive health “rights” as well as comprehensive sexuality education (CSE).

Though comprehensive sexual education was eventually included in the document, countries refused to mention it without reference to “the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents” to provide “appropriate direction and guidance on sexual and reproductive matters.” Similarly, any reference to sexual and reproductive rights in the document was explicitly understood by countries not to include abortion as a method of family planning.

Even more disappointing for radical activist groups was the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity language used by the homosexual lobby to promote homosexual rights at the UN. The Arab group and a majority of the African countries along with the help of the Holy See, the Russian Federation, and Pakistan threw out the only reference to sexual orientation in the final draft of the document on the last day of the conference.

While the exclusion of “sexual orientation” appears to be a victory, the UN dialect is so misleading that the single mention that does exist in the document of the right to “decide freely and responsibly on matters related to…sexuality” greatly worried delegations like Uganda, who believed it was an attempt by countries supportive of homosexual rights to sneak in new language.

In addition, even though the conference theme was “Adolescents and Youth,” countries could not agree upon the definition of either term. Initially, they were defined as falling within the ages of 10 and 24 but given that the document mentions sexual and reproductive rights, countries were unwilling to afford these rights to 10 year olds and the definition proved too controversial to include.

Despite the hard fought battle of many delegations to move beyond reproductive rights and, instead, secure strong references to education, employment and the Millennium Development Goals in the document, the serious misgivings among countries related to the reproductive rights and sexuality of youth made it nearly impossible to reach consensus. As a result the chairman of the Population Commission took it upon himself to put together the final outcome document, or chairman’s text, which even he admitted, “was not completely satisfactory to all.”

Timothy Hermann is Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute’s Representative to the United Nations. His article first appeared in Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

Opposing the CRC from Within

By Michael Ramey

Every so often we get the question: If the Convention on the Rights of the Child is as dangerous as we warn, where are the complaints from those who have already signed on to it? What do those who have lived with it for the last 20 years have to say?

On November 24, 2011, more than 120 non-profit organizations from the Russian Federation and Ukraine gathered in St. Petersburg to adopt a joint statement answering that very question.

The result is the St. Petersburg Resolution on the Anti-Family Trends in the United Nations, on the Unacceptable Actions of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies, and on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure. As you could no doubt surmise from the title, they share a lot of our concerns.

The St. Petersburg Resolution contains 16 articles declaring the conviction of the signatories that the United Nations and its treaty-monitoring bodies routinely overstep the mission and authority granted to them by those documents. The committees which oversee the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) are specifically called out.

Article 9 is especially relevant to our own cause and concerns. In it, these internal witnesses “insist that states should respect the unique role and position that natural (biological) parents have in the lives of their children. Any interpretations of any provision under the international or national law should reflect the natural presumption that natural parents usually act in good faith and in the best interests of their children…. We are strongly concerned over the existing unfounded and hazardous interpretation of Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, regarding the government as having authority to control and supervise the life of any family and the decisions of any parent under the pretext of providing ‘the best interests of the child’.”

Additionally, Article 13 expresses our shared concern over the tendency of the CRC committee to interpret the treaty “in ways that create new state obligations or that alter the substance of the treaties.” The resolution cites as a clear example the committee’s assertion of an all-out ban on all corporal punishment, even in the home – in contravention of the CRC itself as interpreted under the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In response, the Resolution states, “we regard those actions and interpretations of UN treaty monitoring bodies as unacceptable and undermining the genuine basics of international law.”

Unfortunately for the people of Russia and Ukraine, the St. Petersburg Resolution is not binding in any way. For them, it is an instrument by which to urge their governments not to ratify the new Optional Protocol on a Communications Procedure, which would grant even more authority to the rogue Committee on the Rights of the Child.

For us, the resolution provides testimony from within the nations of the CRC which we will share with Congress and the Senate. This testimony makes clear, from those who have lived under the CRC, that it is not something we would want to adopt here in the United States.

Michael Ramey is Director of Communications & Research at Parental Rights. For more information about Parental Rights, visit www.parentalrights.org.

What Do Pharmaceuticals, Toxins and Nazi War Criminals Have in Common?

The short answer is vaccines.

In several articles published in Natural News, vaccines are reported to contain neurotoxins like thimerosal, which is a mercury-based preservative. Just a tiny amount of mercury ingested by human or animal can result in certain death. Thimerosal is not the only toxin used in making vaccines. This much the FDA admitted in a recent court case, according to Natural News.

In his article, S. D. Wells identified 11 more toxins found in vaccines. Among them are several additional neurotoxins, phenoxyethanol and MSG. Consuming phenoxyethanol is comparable to eating cosmetics. It is can shut down the human central nervous system, liver and kidneys. MSG (monosodium glutamate) can cause central nervous system disorders and especially brain damage in children. Bovine cow serum is another toxic ingredient of many vaccines. This serum is an extract of cow skin that is known to cause connective tissue disorders, arthritis, lupus, and other diseases. Human albumin is the protein part of human blood. When extracted from pooled blood, it can result in the loss of body cell mass and immune deficiency disorders thus increasing the likelihood of contracting viruses and other deadly diseases. Then there is formaldehyde that can cause liver damage, gastrointestinal issues, reproductive deformation, respiratory distress and cancer. Plus, formaldehyde has been known to fail to deactivate the virus the vaccine is intended to cure, thus enabling a live virus to enter your blood and infect your system. Maybe that is why formaldedhyde is ranked one of the most hazardous compounds to human health.

An interview was recently discovered in which Dr. Maurice Hilleman, former scientist at Merck, admitted he and others knew the vaccines they were making contained 40 or more viruses and bacteria including carcinogens.

By the way, Hitler’s investments in Merck Pharmacuetical were substantial, according to Wells.

What does this have to do with Nazi war criminals?

As Wells pointed out in his article, some of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies have been lead by Nazi war criminals. I.G. Farben, BASF, Hoechst, Dow and Bayer not only helped build the Nazi gas chambers but also tested their vaccines on those Jews as well. Because I.G. Farben was the Third Reich’s equivalent to our Food & Drug Administration and Center for Disease Control., those corporations had Hitler’s approval.

After being convicted at the Nurremburg trials and serving a short prison term, Fritz ter Meer was appointed as Chairman of the Board at Bayer while Carl Krauch, an executive at Hitler’s I.G. Farben, became Chairman of the Board at BASF.

While head of Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Fritz ter Meer along four other drug companies convinced the United Nations to implement a plan called Codex Alimentarius, which means book of food rules. In a report titled Nutricide: The Killing Camps of Codex Alimentarius, Rima E. Laibow, MD claims the same ideology of ter Meer that included eugenics, sterilizations, ethnic cleansing, and the extermination of worthless consumers of Germany’s limited resources like the Jews is embedded in the UN sanctioned Codex Alimentarius. In this case, it is the useless eaters of the world’s supposed limited food supply who will benefit the world by eating to death that is eating food prepared for their economic status and tastes.

Remember, Margaret Sangster and followers used abortion to benefit America by helping the poor in urban black communities kill their unborn by the millions. With the birth of organizations like Planned Parenthood, Sangster’s socialist work has progressed up the social food chain to the middle class and university students.

As eugenics came to America during the 1960s in the form of abortion, so too did toxic vaccines. Maybe that is why drugs companies have government approval to drug America’s children with both mind altering and supposed sexual disease preventing dope. (See the stories by Washington Post, Huffington Post, and Citizens for Health.)

Now, Nutricide is coming to America. Our federal government intends to harmonize FDA regulations with the Nazi-born Codex Alimentarius, according to Rima Laibow.

Oddly enough, Laibow’s underlying concern is freedom. Freedom of all consumers of have health enriching food. Whether they be poor or rich, urban or rural, Jew or non-Jew, or citizens of first world or third world countries, Laibow seems to believes all people should have access to food and food supplements void of toxic chemicals, harmful bacteria and deadly viruses.

Looking forward to the Passover and Easter holiday, one of the things science and history ancient Egypt reveals the Jews were delivered from was slavery to a disease-ridden toxic environment that contaminated their food. Many died or lived in misery as a result. May the Living God and His Christ deliver us all from the life-diminshing conditions created by the heartless but laughing Pharaohs of the 21st Century.

US Bullying Angers Developing World and Leads to US Defeat at UN

By Timothy Herrmann and Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

(NEW YORK C-FAM) Negotiations for a final document at the UN Commission on the Status of Women were supposed to end more than a week ago. However, they dragged on for another several days and resulted in a stinging defeat for the Obama administration and anger on the part of the developing world.

The US was trying to impose its sexual and reproductive rights agenda and in a dramatic showdown, delegations scuttled a final document rather than accept the US proposal.

Delegations openly resented the US emphasis on sexual and reproductive rights, and were particularly offended at being strong-armed by the US during negotiations for the resolution on maternal mortality. However, the US was able to push that resolution through without toning down their sexual and reproductive rights emphasis.

In the maternal mortality resolution, the US delegation insisted on new language that delegations feared could advance a right to abortion. Delegates were also concerned about references to “age appropriate sexual education” that did not acknowledge the role of parents, as well as dubious references to “gender.”

Negotiations on the final document, called “agreed conclusions,” were extended a week longer than expected because consensus could not be reached. Delegations carried negotiations well into the early hours of last Thursday, when the commission concluded its session, but the US would not budge, causing the negotiations to fail.

Michelle Bachelette, the head of UN Women, spoke to the delegates at the closing of CSW. She was disappointed by the commission’s “inability to reach consensus.” Several delegations voiced their frustration with the ideological rigidity of the US and other delegations in the reproductive rights camp.

The delegate from Zimbabwe, speaking for the African Group, complained about the position of “only one delegation” that had caused the process to falter. She also clarified that the African Group believed the use of the word “gender” referred to male and female, as outlined in previous international documents, and emphasized the sovereign prerogative of African nations to do so.

The Iranian delegation made a statement lamenting that a “tender bridge (consensus) collapsed last night at around 1:00am…only because of the intransigence, hardball playing and lack of flexibility on the part of one side of the room over issues that were not germane to the text.” Iran reproached these parties for coming to the negotiating table with “a mindset of achieving all they want, with no flexibility.”

On the opposite side of the negotiating table was the ambassador from Norway, who bluntly criticized nations for not abandoning “moral values” or accepting radical versions of gender equality: “[W]e have seen how moral values have been evoked to deprive women of their human rights, their opportunities – and ultimately, for some – their lives! This is the real moral hazard of our time!” She later added that “Many will have to let go of some traditional convictions, also when they are based on religious belief or culture…That’s what’s called development.”

Timothy Hermann is a U.N. Representative of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) and Stefano Gennarini is writer for C-FAM as well. The above new article first appeared in Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.”