Bradley Modeled After NJ Welfare Reform

The humble beginnings of Bradley were modeled in New Jersey as a test. This article describes those humble beginnings before Hillary Clinton and the feminist brigade swept into town under the Clinton Administration to create the novel and unconstitutional enforcement of Bradley Law.

The excerpt below is a part of the article link found below.

By STATES NEWS SERVICE
Published: January 15, 1989

“The national law also includes child-support enforcement measures introduced by Senator Bill Bradley. Those steps include authorizing automatic garnishing of an absent parent’s wages and using genetic tests to determine paternity if either party requests it.

New Jersey officials already use many of the enforcement techniques in the national law, but 78 percent of child-support orders go uncollected.

Mr. Altman said that state officials worked closely with Mr. Bradley in developing the new enforcement measures in the national law, and that state officials welcomed the automatic wage withholding.

”You can do as much or more to keep people off of welfare through more aggressive child-support enforcement as through employment and training,” Mr. Altman said.

Revisiting the News: Hillary's Children Crusade

Hillary Clinton, Directing a Sweeping ‘Children’s Crusade’

Prediction 4; Integrating the government’s role in education, health and safety
By Thomas Toch

Posted 12/20/92

(see commentary below reprinted article)

During their first post-election trip to Washington in November, Bill and Hillary Clinton attended a glittering fund-raiser for the Children’s Defense Fund at the resplendent National Building Museum. But it was Mrs. Clinton, not the president-elect, who delivered the gala’s keynote address. “All of us have to recognize that we owe our children more than we have been giving to them,” she told an audience of 1,500 seated at tables decorated with little plywood replicas of schoolhouses.

In a break with Washington tradition, the Clinton administration is planning to merge its education policies into a much broader children’s agenda that also addresses the health and safety of the nation’s young. Hillary Clinton is likely to play a key role in this children’s crusade. In a two-decade career as a legal and social activist, she has pressed for a larger government role in protecting children’s rights and well-being. Once in the White House, she is likely to lead a presidential commission that will attempt to broaden and better coordinate Washington’s work on behalf of the nation’s children.

Over the years, Clinton has written a number of scholarly articles urging an expansion of children’s legal rights, a record that drew attacks at the Republican National Convention last August. In the early 1980s, she headed a commission in Arkansas that led to sweeping school reforms in the state. As first lady, she will almost certainly play a key role in shaping a children’s federal agenda that is likely to include:

Head Start. The president-elect has pledged to expand the popular federal program that supplies health screening, meals and learning activities to 622,000 disadvantaged preschoolers. With a $2.2 billion budget, Head Start serves about a third of the 3-to-5-year-olds who qualify for the program, and Bill Clinton has promised to persuade Congress to “fully fund” the program. Clinton is likely to be pressured to raise the quality of Head Start programs as well.

Health care. Prenatal care and expanded childhood immunization against smallpox and other diseases are Clinton administration priorities.

Child support enforcement. In a 1992 report, a national commission urged tough sanctions against “deadbeat dads,” fathers who fail to make required payments to support children they don’t live with. The commission’s recommendations are likely to be drafted into legislation in 1993.

Child welfare. George Bush in 1992 vetoed a $2.3 billion bill to both improve and find alternatives to the nation’s costly and often poorly performing foster care system. Children’s advocates expect Clinton to sign the bill in 1993.

Family leave. Bush twice vetoed legislation granting employees the opportunity to take unpaid leave to care for newborns and sick family members. Clinton is expected to sign the legislation early in 1993.

School reform. The 103rd Congress must reauthorize more than 50 federal school programs funded at $9.2 billion in fiscal 1992. The Clinton administration is likely to press for national exams, public-school choice and, in particular, substantial reform in the $7 billion Chapter 1 program for disadvantaged students. Its likely proposals include targeting funds to schools with the highest concentrations of impoverished students, slashing the program’s red tape and instituting higher academic standards and sanctions for schools that perform poorly.

Hillary Clinton has been involved since the early 1970s with the Children’s Defense Fund, both as a lawyer and a member of the board. The nomination of University of Wisconsin Chancellor Donna Shalala, the current chair of the advocacy group, as Bill Clinton’s secretary of health and human services sends a clear signal of the administration’s desire to pay close and immediate attention to the needs of the nation’s disadvantaged kids.

Fully 14 million American children, or 1 in 5 under the age of 18, live in poverty.

This story appears in the December 28, 1992 print edition of U.S. News & World Report
U.S. News & World Report

My thanks to U.S. News & World Report for the archived article. You will notice that little has changed since the 80s and 90s except that poverty and all the things that politicians were “trying to repair” have not worked. Oppressive and detailed regulations have compounded all the problems that Democrats and the Clinton Administration claimed to want to fix. When you look at old articles from the 1980s, it is almost as if the same pathetic figures are being recycled to prove the same old points for problems that never see any form of resolution. It is time to wise up to these wiseacres and get opponents of American freedom out of office. ~ E. M.

Thank you for your support. Please write your lawmaker and tell them to REPEAL BRADLEY and unconstitutional Title V law.

Book Review: Children of the State

Children of the State by Joseph A. D’Agostino

There is no such thing as other people’s children. – Hillary Clinton

Conservative Americans fancy that socialism has been largely defeated or that its greatest remaining threat lies in taxation and spending. They forget that the dream of leftist revolutionaries for centuries has been not only to equalize wealth and social status, but to eliminate all distinctions among the citizens of their ideal republic. All of these revolutionaries from Marx on down have targeted the family for destruction.

Undemocratic Institution

The family is a highly undemocratic institution. The nuclear family consists of one man and one woman, a highly specific and unliberated straitjacket of a social structure. They have loyalty to one another greater than that to society at large and also dedication to their own children, over whom they have authority—and any private authority is a rival to the government’s. To a true democrat, this preference for one’s spouse and authority over one’s children violates the principle of equality, which proclaims that we must treat everyone exactly the same. For the modern democratic statist, these loyalties and authorities weaken his own power and inhibit the ongoing concentration of all authority in one central government.

Stephen Baskerville’s Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House) details just how far leftists have succeeded in abolishing the family. Of course, anyone with a cursory knowledge of the state of the American family knows that it has been largely destroyed, with most children spending at least part of their childhoods without one of their biological parents at home, a divorce rate of more than 40%, an ever-increasing illegitimacy rate and no-fault divorce laws that render a marriage compact less legally enforceable than a cell-phone contract.

Yet what most do not know, even if they follow family issues, is that our family courts are nearly all-powerful, unaccountable star chambers that openly reject due process, traditional legal rights and the Constitution itself. Family courts are civil courts or courts of equity, not criminal courts, so most constitutional protections and procedures do not apply, even though these courts have been given tremendous power. They routinely take couples’ children away from them without trial on the flimsiest accusation of abuse from a teacher or neighbor, limit or eliminate one or both parents’ contact with their own children after divorce without any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents’ part, order parents to pay the fees of lawyers and psychotherapists they did not hire, and send parents to jail without a hearing.

Control of the Courts

This excellent book carefully documents the extreme control that these courts have and how faithless mothers—and, increasingly, faithless fathers—use them and are used by them to eject the other parent from the family and garnish his wages for themselves. Then, of course, these mothers must obey the courts’ every order concerning how their children are raised and educated, and the courts are not shy about imposing government-approved methods. Baskerville knows his subject backward and forward and provides 974 endnotes for documentation and further reading. He also provides intriguing psychosocial speculation on why parenthood, and particularly fatherhood, have come under such intense attack in recent decades as a culmination of the long-ago revolt against broader social fatherhood—organic societies and traditional monarchies—and against God the Father Himself.

Those who believe that the United States has, despite the occasional abuse, a just legal system will probably ignore the above. Yet in a country where the courts have declared abortion-on-demand a constitutional right no matter what legislators say and have authorized the government to effectively confiscate land without compensation if an official finds an endangered species on it, is this so unbelievable?

Baskerville repeatedly points out that it is no secret that family courts operate in this way. They officially have the powers that they use thousands of times every day. Unwillingly divorced fathers and children bear the brunt of the family court industry, which profits every time a family is broken but loses financially whenever one stays together. A mother who unilaterally divorces her husband receives primary custody of their children the vast majority of the time and child-support payments to boot. Under the no-fault divorce laws of the various states, wrongdoing on the part of the father is usually not alleged, much less proven. It doesn’t matter: When one party wants to destroy the marriage, the other pays—and now that more men are catching on to the game, mothers are beginning to lose out. Yet contrary to the image portrayed even by conservative journalists, at least two-thirds of divorces are desired by the woman and not the man. It is more women than men who are destroying families today.

Fathers Needed in Homes

The consensus among the vast majority of liberal social scientists, as Baskerville explains, is that children without their biological fathers in the home are far more likely to be abused, poor and develop psychological problems. More than race, income, or race and income combined, father absence is a predictor of juvenile delinquency, drug abuse and mental illness. Divorce harms children by reducing their fathers’ presence in their lives far more often than it helps them—and even scientists can see it.

Baskerville, a longtime fathers’ rights activist and now a professor of government at Patrick Henry College, provides one horror story after another: The unwillingly divorced father ordered to pay two-thirds of his income in child support, the man innocent of any crime jailed for saying hello to his children in the street. Since family courts usually operate in secret without oversight, there is no way of telling how common such atrocities are. But the real horror is the routine process: The power of the courts to control parents’ access to their children and determine their financial lives once the betraying spouse decides to abandon the other.

Lack of child support spurs penalties

Question: A friend of mine said if you owe back child support, the government won’t let you get a passport. Is this true? Are there other things they can do or keep you from doing? What if you have a reason for not paying? My wife isn’t letting me see my kids, and I know when I send money she spends it on anything except the kids.

Star Bulletin, Hawaii February 26, 2008

Lack of child support spurs penalties

Legal Aid Society of Hawaii

Question: A friend of mine said if you owe back child support, the government won’t let you get a passport. Is this true? Are there other things they can do or keep you from doing? What if you have a reason for not paying? My wife isn’t letting me see my kids, and I know when I send money she spends it on anything except the kids.

Answer: From Tara Shibuya, Legal Aid family attorney: If you owe more than $2,500 in back child support, the Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) can prevent you from getting a new passport or prevent you from renewing an existing one through CSEA’s Passport Denial Program.

Other methods of enforcement CSEA exercises include the following: (1) suspending, not renewing, or canceling your driver’s license and other professional licenses if you are more than three months behind in child support payments; (2) collecting your Hawaii state income tax refund if you owe more than $25 in child support; (3) collecting your federal tax refund if you owe more than $500; (4) intercepting certain federal payments owed to you, including federal retirement payments, and relocation and travel reimbursements for federal employees; (5) placing liens on all interests in real property you own or acquire; (6) levying your financial accounts (note: All financial institutions in Hawaii will report to CSEA any requested information regarding accounts maintained by noncustodial parents at its institution); and (7) reporting your arrears as a debt to a credit bureau. Child support is for the benefit of the child(ren), and the courts impose this obligation by ordering the noncustodial parent to reimburse the custodial parent for various child(ren)-related expenditures like housing, food, etc.

There is no correlation between child support and visitation. Family Court will not accept “no visitation” as an excuse to not pay child support; likewise, Family Court will not terminate your child support because you are not receiving visitation. If you need to enforce your visitation rights, you should seek relief from the court.

Bradley All About Men, Huh?

Woman pleads guilty for not paying child support

“A former Akron mother was arrested in Kentucky for not paying child support after her photograph was posted on an Akron billboard.” Turning people into criminals should not be taken lightly. This article and the billboard clearly does. Personal demonization and the federal attempt at criminalization of child support is the only way that this sort of abuse could happen. Do you post names of corrupt bankers or politicians and corporation thieves on billboards in the name of the pursuit of justice? As you can see, Bradley Law doesn’t just affect men.

Woman pleads guilty for not paying child support

Published: Wednesday, February 20, 2008, 1:09 PM

A former Akron mother was arrested in Kentucky for not paying child support after her photograph was posted on an Akron billboard.

Dawn M. Newman, 32, of Greenup, Ky., pleaded guilty Wednesday morning to one charge of criminal non-support, a felony of the fifth degree.

Judge Marvin Shapiro sentenced her to five years of probation.

Summit Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh said Newman was arrested at her residence January 29 by a U.S. marshal’s deputy and Greenup County Sheriff’s deputy.

A warrant was issued for Newman on June 15 when she owed $11,871.54 in child support.

She currently owes $13,514.70 to two children, ages 11 and 13, who are in
the custody of their father.

Her last payment was made in August 2004 in the amount of $50.

An anonymous tip provided information regarding Newman’s whereabouts after the caller saw her picture on a billboard. Newman is one of 11 individuals arrested off the billboards.

The Criminal Non-Support Program has collected more than $13 million in child support payments since 2001.

Last year, Summit County CSEA indicted 355 individuals for Criminal Non-Support and collected approximately $3 million.

NY Post Calls Hillary's Brother

“Hillary Rodham Clinton’s youngest sibling is a deadbeat dad who owes tens of thousands of dollars in child support to his politically connected ex” This isn’t good news, especially for Hillary Clinton’s brother, but the article is made worse by the sensational “deadbeat dad” reference. Mr. Rodham is unquestionably doing well and might be considered to be one of those “Wall Street sorts” that Ms. Clinton loves to deride in her commentaries and government plans. The truth is that most dads are not wealthy or able to defend themselves against Hillary’s pet law and triumph: The Bradley Amendment. This law has defined a new level of poverty in the name of the children it claims to serve based almost wholly on unconstitutional law. The federal law has failed on all counts except for creating more big government to the tune of $6 billion yearly.

As it stands, this is Hillary Clinton’s only major victory in social engineering. She expects to trump this with her health care plan and is running a trial with the help of fellow politicians in Massachusetts, just like she did with Bradley enforcement.

HILL’S BROTHER A DEADBEAT
OWES 158G IN KID SUPPORT & ALIMONY

Owe, brother!

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s youngest sibling is a deadbeat dad who owes tens of thousands of dollars in child support to his politically connected ex, The Post has learned.

In a disclosure that could prove embarrassing for his sister, Anthony Rodham has stiffed his former wife, Nicole Boxer, out of $75,000 in child support, as well as $55,000 in alimony, a source close to the case said.

Including interest and various fees and expenses, the presidential candidate’s brother now owes Boxer – the daughter of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) – more than $158,000, the source said.

The revelation that Rodham is delinquent with his payments won’t be a welcome development for Hillary Clinton, coming as the too-close-to-call battle for the Democratic presidential nomination reaches a fevered pitch and with the first votes to be cast in Iowa in exactly two weeks.

Barbara Boxer has not endorsed a candidate in the race.

Nicole Boxer received judgments from a Washington judge ordering Rodham to pay up earlier this year, but the cash-strapped business consultant has yet to fork over the hefty sums.

“He has consistently been a deadbeat dad when it comes to paying child support and spousal support, despite the courts telling him over and over again that he must meet his obligations,” a source close to Nicole Boxer said.

Rodham’s lawyer, Gwendolyn Jo Carlberg, said she would “not comment on the veracity of any figures that are the subject of private and confidential settlement negotiations, as this is a personal, family matter and is under seal.” She did say her client “fully intends to honor the judgment.”

Nicole Boxer’s lawyer could not be reached for comment.

Rodham, 53, married Boxer in the White House Rose Garden in 1994, when his brother-in-law, Bill Clinton, was president.

The couple had a son, Zachary, two years later, but the political union came to an end in 2000.

Fights over child support soon followed – at one point in 2002, Nicole charged that her ex hadn’t paid anything in six months.

The latest support strife has been going on most of this past year, and Carlberg said her client has been trying to settle their differences in and out of court.

She said a Superior Court judge ruled against Rodham earlier this year.

“He strongly disagreed with the ruling, and so did I,” she said. “We appealed the decision, and Mr. Rodham did not prevail.”

That final ruling was in October.

Carlberg said she “sent a settlement letter to Ms. Boxer’s attorney a few weeks ago for structured payment. As of today, we have not received a reply.”

The Nicole Boxer source blasted Rodham’s settlement offers as “just another dodge from meeting his obligations to his former wife and son while he lives in his fancy Washington town house” with his new wife, whom he married in 2005.

A former insurance salesman, prison guard and private eye, Rodham has been a headache for the former and possibly future first family before.

He and his brother Hugh embarrassed the Clintons in 1999 with a politically perilous plan to import hazelnuts from the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

He also became a figure in the “Pardongate” scandal, when it was revealed that he lobbied Bill Clinton to pardon two embezzlers.

Rodham made headlines again shortly after his split from Nicole, when he was attacked at his family cottage in the Berkshires by a man who claimed he saw Rodham having sex with his girlfriend.

Rodham later testified that he “might have” smoked pot with the woman.

Child Support Mess: the federal Bradley Amendment

the U.S. Federal Bradley Amendment for child support is unconstitutional:

1. violation of due process under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments
2. deprives equal protection under the law
3. violation of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
4. violation of natural human rights under the 9th Amendment

these are just the basic details on “the short list”.

Write your Congress and Senate to repeal Bradley!

Child Support and Political Nightmare by repealbradley

Clinton: Hiding Behind Children

If the idea of subterfuge in politics is new to you, I recommend reading this article that is loosely based on children and the use of children in politics. Unfortunately, our friend Hillary Clinton happens to be the topic. What can I say? History speaks for itself.

Whether you agree with this article or not, this article is worth your time and makes valuable points that any honest-thinking American must consider. Since this is election time, your knowledge and opinion are more important than ever. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Sweetness and Light Article

Memo: Kid Care Precursor To Hillarycare

 

From the Politico:

Battle of sound bites reaches health care

By: Martin Kady II

October 2, 2007

In the battle of sound bites over President Bush’s expected veto of the children’s health insurance bill, the White House position boils down to this: Beware, beware — it’s the first step toward federalized health care.

Nonsense, say supporters from both sides of the aisle, who swear they would never vote for a bill that was the proverbial camel’s nose under a tent on government-run health care.

But a look back at the fine print of the 1993 “Hillarycare” debacle shows there may be a grain of truth in the Republican suspicions — and also demonstrates that the GOP believes there is still significant political power to be mined from one of the Clinton administration’s greatest political and tactical failures.

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured. 

That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.

“Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,” the memo says. “Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.”

The memo was sent to Politico by a Republican congressional office.

But the document is part of a trove of paperwork released as part of a 1993 lawsuit between the Clinton health care task force and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign did not dispute the intent of the 1993 memo but pointed out that Clinton herself never publicly pushed the Kids First concept and that covering children first was just one of several options laid out during the mid-1990s debate…

“Everyone knows that Clinton has had government-run health care on her to-do list for at least a decade,” said Ryan Loskarn, a spokesman for the Senate Republican Conference. “The memo helps make clear the reason Democrats have pushed SCHIP legislation that includes coverage for adults and upper-income families. This isn’t about helping poor kids. For them, it’s about making big government even bigger.” …

Not that this should surprise anyone. Hillary has always hidden behind children.

It’s one of the tactics she learned from the Communist Saul Alinsky.

From the late Barbara Olson’s great book, “Hell To Pay” (pp 113-5):

Village Socialism

What comes through in [Hillary’s] essays is the arrogant voice of the social engineer, the activist who believes that reshaping the most intimate of human relationships is as simple as rotating crops. There is more than a little foreshadowing here of Hillary’s future effort to centralize the management of Arkansas education from the governor’s office in Little Rock, and of her great socialist health care debacle in President Clinton’s first term.

In a 1978 article Hillary wrote that the federal school lunch program “became politically acceptable not because of arguments about hungry children, but because of an alliance between children’s advocates and the association of school cafeteria workers who seized the opportunity to increase its membership.” Children, she concludes, deserve similarly “competent and effective advocates.” It doesn’t seem to matter to her that the cafeteria workers were not interested in the children, but the power of their work force. Children and their real interests don’t seem nearly as important to Hillary as the power of the political lever they represent…

These advocates, to the extent not motivated by high fees, would come to each case not essentially as representatives of the child-client, but as activists looking to see how this little boy, or that little girl, fits into a greater strategy to expand an entitlement or control how a government agency functions.

“The notion,” Christopher Lasch commented in his criticism of Hillary’s writings, “that children are not fully capable of speaking for themselves makes it possible for ventriloquists to speak through them and thus to disguise their own objectives as the child.”

Hillary wrote in a 1978 book review for Public Welfare, “Collective action is needed on the community, state and federal level to wrest from machines and those who profit from their use the extraordinary power they hold over us all, but particularly over children.”

The idea that power must be wrested from “machines” is peculiar, ignoring that, at bottom, Hillary’s children’s crusade is a hard-nosed exercise in expanding power in a different direction, in the direction of public interest trial lawyers with a social engineering agenda. Children are useful, just as migrant workers and the indigent elderly are useful, as tools to pry loose the controls, to get into the guts of the machinery of law and governance. Children are the rhetorical vehicles she still uses as first lady, whether pressing for national health care or to get Congress to pay UN dues…

This has always been Hillary’s modus operandi. She has always used children as her sword and (especially) buckler to bully through her socialist agenda. But the document is part of a trove of paperwork released as part of a 1993 lawsuit between the Clinton health care task force and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Just imagine how much more information we would know about Mrs. Bill Clinton if her records from her days as First Lady were not hidden away under lock and key at the Clinton Library.

Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support

Hillary Clinton ‘recognizes’ that many states’ child support guidelines are excessive, noting:
“Child support payments can represent half of [low-income] men’s income, and can provide a strong incentive to work in the underground economy.”

Hillary Clinton’s Youth Opportunity Agenda

Hillary Clinton’s Youth Opportunity Fact Sheet

It’s strange how nobody seems to remember that Hillary and her husband Bill are largely responsible for the current state of affairs in child support legislation. The Clinton Administration, with the capable help of Hillary and Donna Shalala made certain that they breathed federal enforcement lifeblood into the democratically-sponsored Bradley Amendment of 1986. This federal law that violates state rights assigned by the Constitution and civil rights is the reason the low-income fathers are in trouble. They certainly can’t negotiate and probably can’t afford to hire the legal help required. So now Mrs. Clinton cares? Does she have a guilty conscience? Doubtless. Perhaps she has performed some legal magic in her latest plans with a backlash against the very ones she claims to want to help. Previous evidence supports this interpretation.