If we don't like the Human Rights Council, then let's not fund it. We should pick and choose cafeteria style which groups we want to help.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Obviously any group that has to have funding also needs to get attention to their issues.
Right-to-life groups won't fund us because we're Democrats.
It's time to re-think charity. It's time to give charity the big-league freedoms we really give to business. The fight for these freedoms must be our new cause, because without them, all of our causes are ultimately lost.
It shouldn't be a matter of who deserves help or not, but of whether we want to be a country that allows its neediest to continue to need. Condemnation of individuals and their choices mutes all these other really important logistical questions about funding and budget and politics.
Most philanthropists would still rather donate to elite schools, concert halls or religious groups than help the poor or sick.
In any human-rights campaign, everybody must do what they can.
The first piece of advice I would have from my experience is that governments need to be vocal about human rights.
Let the wealthier countries and corporations of the world fund an Emergency Organization.
Our humanitarian aid system is sick and needs to be fixed. It needs to get a reality check and get back humanity.
Currently, the United States provides 22 percent of the U.N. annual budgets, over $900 million in fiscal year 2007, and some of that funding goes to the Human Rights Council.
No opposing quotes found.