A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘Bill Bradley’

Child Support Laws Are United Nations Treaty

the rise of children to godhood

The “new” child support laws that have grabbed hold of the United States since the 1990’s are part of the growing international power of the United Nations. Many other “first world” nations, as well as ‘lesser’ nations, have adopted similar rules ascribing huge protections for children, while looting the pocketbooks of parents and their rights. Previously, under common law, children were the property of parents. As the United Nations has gained in power and influence, this has changed from nation to nation. This treaty completes the transition that began in 1933 by Franklin Roosevelt, which sets out that citizens are property of the state and that the state holds right to all property.

Nations that ratify this convention are bound to it by international law. Compliance is monitored by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is composed of members from countries around the world. Once a year, the Committee submits a report to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, which also hears a statement from the CRC Chair, and the Assembly adopts a Resolution on the Rights of the Child.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (commonly abbreviated as the CRC, CROC, or UNCRC) is a human rights treaty setting out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. It was ratified on November 20, 1989 and is adopted by 193 nations (the United States is currently exempt). The Convention defines a child as any human being under the age of eighteen, unless any states other domestic legislation majority is an earlier age.

The Declaration of the Rights of the Child is the name given to a series of related children’s rights proclamations drafted by Save the Children founder Eglantyne Jebb in 1923. Jebb believed that the rights of a child should be especially protected and enforced and the first stipulations for child’s rights were drafted.

Jebb’s initial 1923 document consisted of the following criteria:

  1. The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually.
  2. The child that is hungry must be fed, the child that is sick must be nursed, the child that is backward must be helped, the delinquent child must be reclaimed, and the orphan and the waif must be sheltered and succored.
  3. The child must be the first to receive relief in times of distress.
  4. The child must be put in a position to earn a livelihood, and must be protected against every form of exploitation.
  5. The child must be brought up in the consciousness that its talents must be devoted to the service of its fellow men.

These ideas were adopted by the International Save the Children Union in Geneva, Switzerland, on February 23, 1923 and endorsed by the League of Nations General Assembly on November 26, 1924 as the World Child Welfare Charter. However, these proclamations were not enforceable by international law, but rather only guidelines for countries to follow. (UNICEF Corporate History) The original document is in the archives of the city of Geneva, which carries the signatures of various international delegates, including Jebb, Janusz Korczak, and Gustave Ador, a former President of the Swiss Confederation.

The SCIU (International Save the Children Union) merged into the International Union of Child Welfare by 1946, and this group pressed the newly formed United Nations to continue to work for war-scarred children and for adoption of the World Child Welfare Charter.

On November 20,  1959 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a much expanded version as its own Declaration of the Rights of the Child during the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adding ten principles in place of the original five. November 20 has been adopted as the Universal Children’s Day. These statutes of law could be said to give the child a legal position of ‘godhood.’ Children have become the ultimate excuse to do anything that might seem beneficial.

On September 2, 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child became international law. The Convention consists of 54 articles that address the basic human rights children everywhere are entitled to: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. The four core principles of the Convention are supposedly attributed the status as non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child. Today, you hear these same kind of things in U.S. government, spread as righteous propaganda. In 2009, Senator Barbara Boxer sought to ratify the treaty, even though the United States is currently functioning under the regime of the United Nations. The rights of parents have already been eroded in line with United Nations treaty except for the reporting function, resisting the public display of bowing to United Nation authority. The ‘law of the land’ had already been set by current statute.

Governments of countries that have ratified the Convention are required to report to, and appear before, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child periodically to be examined on their progress with regards to the advancement of the implementation of the Convention and the status of child rights in their country. Their reports and the committee’s written views and concerns are available on the committee’s website.

While the Bradley Amendment was brought into law by the U.S. Congress in 1986, it took the Convention on the Rights of the Child to make it real in your life today. Increasingly, the world has become a group of vassal states under United Nations rule.

Archive: Bradley Challenges Child Poverty



“Though he has been an outspoken critic of the sweeping welfare changes enacted by Congress in 1996, his last year in the Senate, Mr. Bradley did not propose rolling back that law’s major provisions, which include time limits on benefits and work requirements for recipients.”


Bill Bradley did not like the changes that the Clinton Administration made in his “pure” law that he and Democrat colleagues made from 1984 through 1991. Democrats worked overtime year by year to modify and recreate family law and welfare before the Clinton swept into office. Apparently, he doesn’t formally object to the enforcement measures that Clinton and the feminists made which violate the civil rights of every American on some level and the civil rights of some Americans on multiple levels. What did the Clintons actually change that made his welfare reform fail or is Bill Bradley simply playing both sides? More likely, he was offended by the Clintons hijacking his personal legal territory. He was running for president at the time, so playing to cover himself is likely. Welfare reform instituted over the years often uses similar tired statistics proposed in this New York Times article along with promises to reduce or eliminate child poverty. The promised results never happen and the welfare and family reform laws usually fails outright on virtually every count. Social engineering through federal tax law rarely works or is kept in place long enough to work. Politics and social engineering has become a large fools game.

Bradley Challenges Nation To Eliminate Child Poverty

By JAMES DAO
Published: October 22, 1999

Describing poverty as a ”slow motion national disaster,” former Senator Bill Bradley called yesterday for reducing the number of poor children by half over the coming decade by raising the minimum wage, increasing spending on child care programs and providing an array of tax benefits to poor parents who work.
(more…)

Archive: Bradley's Poverty Push

This article was published in 1999, just as Bill Bradley was running for President of the United States. It’s strange how politicians, notably Democrats, quote the same old mess about poverty and about they want to help poor impoverished children. The theme is never-ending and many of the statistics never change. Of note is the fact that Mr. Bradley declares a victory of 1%. Bill Bradley fought for some of the most invasive federal welfare reform and made new enforcement measures with the help of the Clintons. He claims that he didn’t approve of what the Clintons did because they watered his legislation down. The law wasn’t enough. It never is. It didn’t work. It never does. The politicians didn’t kill the Bradley Amendment though. They legislated over it in a pretense to make effective legislation.

In America; Bradley’s Poverty Push
By BOB HERBERT
Published: October 21, 1999

Bill Bradley, eschewing small themes in favor of a grander vision of America, will argue today, at a speech in Brooklyn, that the United States has a moral obligation to do what it can to lift as many children as possible from the punishing confines of poverty.

”We are in a time of unprecedented prosperity,” he said in an interview, ”and yet there are still nearly 14 million children who live in poverty. I think there is a broad consensus that we need to change that.”

Mr. Bradley said he planned to ”lay out a broad goal to reduce child poverty by a specific amount at a specific time.” And he will detail what he described as the initial steps, or ”down payment,” needed to move toward that goal.

The speech is scheduled for this morning at the Concord Baptist Church in Bedford-Stuyvesant. And like his proposal to make health care available to virtually all uninsured Americans, and his insistence that a Bradley administration would work constantly to break down racial barriers, his approach to child poverty appears to be far more ambitious than the terminally incremental initiatives that have plagued the country since the Clinton health plan imploded.

Mr. Bradley said his speech would address the following: ”How do we increase income for people who are poor? How do we provide child care for people who are poor? How do we generate hope in the lives of people who have had very little hope in their lives?”

This antipoverty initiative is linked both literally and symbolically to Mr. Bradley’s desire to forge a more tolerant and unified society. He noted that 36 percent of the poor children in the U.S. are white, about 30 percent are black, and 22 percent are Latino. ”What I see as a possibility,” he said, ”is a multiracial coalition that would rekindle the same kind of purposefulness as the civil rights revolution in the 1960’s.”

Most politicians have run like rabbits from that kind of talk. Grand visions, idealism, kind words about the 60’s — all have been anathema in the 90’s. But Mr. Bradley, quietly, almost serenely, has been saying the nation is ready once again to assert its better self.

”I think we still have a lot of catching up to do in terms of our commitments to each other and our commitments to children who are poor,” he said.

Mr. Bradley acknowledged that inroads against poverty had been made as the economy has improved over the past few years, but he said that was not enough.

”Poverty dropped, I think, 1 percent last year,” he said. ”I’d rather have that happen than not happen. But it is still higher than it was in 1989 and far higher than it was in 1970.”

Mr. Bradley voted against the so-called welfare reform legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. ”I didn’t think the federal government should cut off its commitment to individual children who are poor,” he said, adding, ”I didn’t think the answer to the problem of children in poverty was to have a group of federal politicians take a pot of money and send it to the state politicians and say, ‘Handle this problem as best you can.’ ”

Mr. Bradley said some of the more objectionable aspects of the law had been modified, but more changes were needed.

Archive: Bradley Fights Republican "Welfare Reform"

Excepts from the NEW YORK TIMES

Published: January 14, 2000

“The issue was the Republican-drafted 1996 welfare reform bill, which eliminated the federal ”entitlement” and sent financing and responsibility for the program back to the states (along with various work requirements and time limits). Mr. Gore, according to news accounts, urged President Clinton to sign the bill when many White House aides were pushing for a veto. As a senator, Mr. Bradley voted against the bill and denounced it with quiet righteousness.

So far, Mr. Gore looks more right than Mr. Bradley: welfare rolls are down, and employment has soared, without a visible increase in suffering. In this case, it was Mr. Gore who thought big and boldly, while Mr. Bradley exhibited a cautious, Washington-style mindset.

Mr. Bradley has given several reasons for opposing the bill. First, he says he was worried about moving authority from Washington to the states.

”I don’t think the answer . . . is to take a pot of money from federal officials and send it to state officials and say, ‘Spend 80 percent of this as best you can,’ ” he said in a debate last week.

This is the classic bias of civil rights era liberals, who learned to rely on the feds, not segregationist governors. But it’s also the institutional bias of the Beltway, a bias not without its self-interested component. (If states could do the job, after all, what would people in Washington do for a living?)

President Clinton, in contrast, had some perspective on this Beltway bias. As a former governor, he was willing to accept that states can administer welfare funds in good faith.

Second, Mr. Bradley deferred to the capital’s semi-official, anointed welfare expert, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. Mr. Moynihan has steered an erratic course on welfare. In the early 70’s, he was for the idea of a guaranteed income, then abandoned it. In 1988 he sponsored a relatively mild reform that in effect required a small number of welfare recipients to seek training. In 1995, he proposed a timid and incremental expansion of this initiative.

Mr. Bradley says he endorsed this incremental approach. ”Welfare needed to be reformed,” he said last summer, ”but I thought the best way to do it was to build on the act that we passed in 1988, which Senator Moynihan was a strong author of.”

Most of all, Mr. Bradley’s viewpoint was that of the liberal congressional establishment. Mr. Bradley has accused the vice president of living in a ”Washington bunker,” but if ever a group had a bunker mentality, it was these Democratic lawmakers. To them, American voters — who hated the welfare system, and avidly supported what seemed to be demagogic appeals to slash benefits — were the enemy.”


If this article is to believed, not all of Washington believes in the federal approach to child support. So why is the problem so hard to address? Do politicians care about civil rights of American citizens? If you believe the Bradley Amendment and Title V enforcement is doing Americans wrong, write your lawmaker today and tell him/her so today.

Tag Cloud