A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘treaty’

States: Fear All Around

by Idaho senator, Mary Souza

justice and moneyFear was evident on both sides of the Child Support bill we were called back to consider last Monday for the Special Session. The House and Senate Judiciary & Rules Joint Committee, of which I am a member, heard nearly 5 hours of testimony, and much of it was based in fear. Those supporting the bill were afraid Idaho’s child support collection system would dissolve without passage of the bill, leaving children and families in dire straits. Those opposed to the bill were worried about loss of constitutional due process and opening our laws to foreign influence. Are any of these people crazy or worthy of ridicule or reprisal? Of course not. Concerns and questions must always be respected.

This was a tricky and complicated piece of legislation. Lack of communication from the Administration left important questions unanswered, which fanned the flames of fear on all sides and caused the need for the special session.

empty-pockets-robbed-court-orderIn my position as the new Senator from Coeur d’Alene, I talked with and heard from a great number of constituents before the special session. Many were in favor, many opposed, but all were very worried. I studied the bill, in depth, on my own and conferred with others. Then I asked questions of a number of attorneys and, as you might guess, heard differing overall views. There were some consistent answers, however, and several of the most important areas of agreement were:

1. The international treaty on child support collection, which is the root of the federal push for this legislation, cannot become more powerful than our US Constitution. No treaty can.

2. Due process is protected for Idahoans involved in child support through foreign countries, and the Idaho court has the right to dismiss a support request if the other country’s laws are “manifestly incompatible” with our public policies.

3. Since 1996, Idaho has had reciprocal child support relationships with 16 foreign countries without significant problems.

4. Child support collection would continue in Idaho, if the bill did not pass, but it there would be a period of uncertainty and possible disruption, until alternate plans could be put in place.

rich guyI voted to approve the bill because of the potential disruption. It passed the House 49-21 and the Senate 33-2. But I remain unhappy, as do most legislators, with the coercive methods used by the Federal government to force states’ approval of this bill. The Feds fueled fear by threatening to withdraw the entire $43 million dollar grant Idaho uses to collect child support payments if the bill was not approved exactly as written and within their dictated timeframe. They also threatened to close our access to the federal database portal used to track the parents responsible to pay for their children.

This just underscores my overall frustration that, too often in Boise, we legislate out of fear… fear of losing Federal money. A significant and growing portion of Idaho’s state budget, nearly 35%, comes from Washington DC. We receive large sums of money for transportation, health and welfare, education and more. And we all know those who give the money hold the strings.

There is legal precedence, however, for states to challenge the hammer of the Federal government when they threaten to remove funding for an existing program as coercion to entice additional action. US Supreme Court Justice Roberts wrote a clear opinion on a recent case about state Medicaid funds. “The States…object that Congress has ‘crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion’…The State’s claim that this threat serves no purpose other than to force unwilling States to sign up for the dramatic expansion of health care coverage affected by the act. Given the nature and the threat and the programs at issue here we must agree.”

welfare queenThere’s more to his legal opinion, of course, but Idaho continues to allow Federal dollars to dictate many of our decisions. To push back would require a show of will and coordination from the Administration, which is not in evidence right now.

Our Founding Fathers were concerned about the power of the then newly formed central government, and feared its future growth could alter the balance of power in our country. Thomas Jefferson expressed this key belief when he reminded, “The federal government is our servant, not our master!”

States have become dependent on Federal money, corporations that are mostly concerned with feeding themselves. The views of this senator don’t begin to address the reality of the system, for all Americans.

This poor senator. She doesn’t realize that she had already undercut the U.S. Constitution by going along with the Feds. She wrote this in an effort to try to absolve her conscience before her constituents. Poor. Pathetic. Stupid. – Rathbone

overthrow

Child Support: How States Should Respond

by Jim Goeppner

burning the constitutionFor a variety of reasons, until this year, Idaho and 29 other states had not adopted the changes to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, released in 2010. No child support payments have been at risk.

Until this year only the EU, Norway, Ukraine, Bosnia, Albania and Herzegovina have ratified the Hague Convention. No child support payments have been at risk.

President Obama has said that he will sign the convention when all 50 states have approved the changes to the UIFSA. After five years the Obama administration has decided that any states that do not adopt the changes this year will lose their funding.

obamas new dealIt seems obvious to me that the government is threatening child support payments to force states to comply with UIFSA so that the president can sign the Hague Convention while he is still in office. The proper way for governors of a sovereign state to react would be to notify the president that since there is no indication that child support payments would be in danger whether or not the

UIFSA is signed this year, they will seek an injunction to halt withholding of federal funds until their concerns are addressed. Will they do it?

overthrow

9 Members of Idaho Legislature Block International Child Support Treaty

by Moody Jim Rathbone

burningrightsinternetAn international agreement to make it easier to enforce child support orders throughout the world is in danger of not being ratified in the United States because of nine lawmakers in Idaho. And what is wrong with that?

Nine members of the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee balked at sending legislation endorsing the agreement to the House for consideration. Without Idaho, the treaty will be dead in the U.S. because all 50 states must approve it. Idaho does not take tyranny lightly.

The Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance has been approved by 32 countries and 19 U.S. states so far. Idaho is taking a step in doing the world a large favor.

dad-slavery-2Yet, there is some dishonesty. Republican Senator Sheryl Nuxoll led the opposition to the measure, testifying to the House committee that it would subject Idaho to Sharia law.  You don’t have to object to Sharia to know that an international child support treaty is a bad idea. Look what international treaty has done to the United States so far. It pretends to do something it rarely truly does.

The treaty does allow states to reject cases that don’t meet state standards, which the Federal Government wants to be Federal standards.

we the peopleGratefully, Idaho has an ‘ornery streak.’ Many residents don’t take lightly to being told what to do. Having a foreign government telling them what to do raises more hackles. Idaho Representative Ryan Kerby s voted against it because he felt the federal government was implying, “You need to sign it, and if you don’t we’re going to beat the crud out of you. They were incredibly rude.”

If Idaho does not get in line to approve the treaty, federal officials are prepared to punish the state. At stake is $16 million in funding for Idaho’s child welfare system, which could be cut off within 60 days unless the legislature changes its mind. It is claimed that the loss of federal subsidies would cripple Idaho’s ability to enforce child support orders against parents. The state may also lose $30 million in block grants for children’s programs, which shows the truth about these matters in the eyes of the Feds. This has nothing to do with children. It’s about power and tyranny. Many of us already know of the tyranny of the Federal government by living it first hand. The Feds and the Hague want to have a power trip at the expense of all Americans.

overthrow

Rejection of Child Support Measure in Idaho

from the Idaho State Journal

all about the greenbacksBOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho is at risk of losing millions of dollars in federal child support funding after conservatives in the Legislature killed a measure that would have brought the state into compliance with federal rules.

The opponents were concerned that passing the legislation could have forced the state to uphold child support rulings made in other countries under Islamic law — a contention others said was baseless.

Health officials said Monday that without a revision they stand to lose access to programs that process child support payments and track down scofflaws, in addition to $46 million in federal payouts.

The conflict started last week after a House committee narrowly rejected a bill that had sailed through the Senate.

The vote came after state Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll, a Cottonwood Republican, testified that federal regulations incorporated an international agreement regarding child support payments that would subject the state to Sharia law.

UN Global Control Agenda

UN Global Control Agenda

None of the nearly 80 countries involved in the treaty — the Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and Family Maintenance, which the U.S. entered in 2007 — is under Sharia law. But Nuxoll and other skeptics said some involved nations informally recognize Sharia courts. They added that Idaho wouldn’t have the authority to challenge another nation’s judgment.

The state’s Attorney General’s Office told the committee, however, that the bill allowed judges to reject cases that don’t meet the state’s standards.

Rep. Luke Malek, a Coeur d’Alene Republican, meanwhile, called the debate an example of “heavy-handed opportunistic theatrics at the expense of single-parents and children.” He and others said the opponents don’t represent Idaho’s GOP caucus.

dollar bondageStill, in a vote that highlighted the conservative streak in Idaho’s Republican-controlled Statehouse, where lawmakers frequently balk at federal mandates, the Rules Committee voted 9-8 to nix the compliance bill, and the legislative session adjourned hours later, throwing the funding and programs into question.

Since the issue affects the state budget, legislators could be called into a special session to revisit the matter.

The governor’s office released a statement Monday, saying officials were “analyzing the impacts of the committee’s actions and what they mean for the 400,000 people who depend on Idaho’s system.”

Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden both are Republicans.

Idaho Health and Welfare Department officials plan to meet with U.S. Health and Human Services representatives this week. They expect to have 60 days to find a solution from that point.

child support loaded gun“This is a new experience for Idaho,” the department said in a statement Monday. “We have been told the federal support for Idaho’s Child Support Program will end if Idaho is not in compliance.”

Without federal tools, parents who are owed child-support payments will have no means to receive them. Idaho uses federal programs to process child support payments.

About 80 percent of payments are taken from paychecks, but noncompliance would prevent Idaho from making such collections.

overthrow

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.

Tag Cloud