Ways and Means of Sedition

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

FA Note: After pub­lish­ing her arti­cle, Vicky emailed the fol­low­ing comment:

A thought just occurred to me… this would be a bril­liant strat­e­gy to pro­vide ter­ror­ist fund­ing in a dis­trib­uted and vir­tu­al­ly unstop­pable way because the courts would be enforc­ing the child sup­port decrees of for­eign tri­bunals — which includes the tri­bunals of the Imams. 

Per­haps I should have called it Ways and Means of Financ­ing Terrorism

We’ve got to step up our game.

Channeling RealityFirst, con­grat­u­la­tions to all the Amer­i­can patri­ots of Ida­ho who turned out to stop the pas­sage of Sen­ate Bill S.1067 Health and Wel­fare, fam­i­ly sup­port act and a heart­felt thank you to the mem­bers of the House Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee that vot­ed it down in a report­ed vote tal­ly of 9–8.

The word on the street is that Gov­er­nor Butch Otter is very unhap­py about the fail­ure to pass this trea­so­nous piece of leg­is­la­tion and he might call a spe­cial ses­sion of the leg­is­la­ture to try and force the leg­is­la­ture to pass this bill. Why? Because there is fed­er­al mon­ey attached to it – pre­sum­ably to pay part of the cost to imple­ment it. It would be a Whimpy Deal…“I’ll glad­ly take the fed­er­al mon­ey today and the Ida­ho tax­pay­ers can take the finan­cial shel­lack­ing for it tomorrow.”

Because of the seri­ous nature of the sys­temic cor­rup­tion that became vis­i­ble with this leg­is­la­tion, as Yogi Berra said, “It ain’t over till it’s over” — and it’s not over.

Dur­ing the mad rush to get out as much infor­ma­tion as pos­si­ble on this leg­is­la­tion and the issues with it, one ques­tion that was asked but not answered imme­di­ate­ly was ‘can you prove a con­nec­tion with the UN Con­ven­tion on the Rights of the Child?’ It can now be answered thanks to a fel­low researcher who went look­ing for it. It’s right at the begin­ning of the text of the Hague Con­ven­tion:HCCH

(Con­clud­ed 23 Novem­ber 2007)

The States sig­na­to­ry to the present Convention,
Desir­ing to improve co-oper­a­tion among States for the inter­na­tion­al recov­ery of child sup­port and oth­er forms of fam­i­ly maintenance,
Aware of the need for pro­ce­dures which pro­duce results and are acces­si­ble, prompt, effi­cient, cost-effec­tive, respon­sive and fair,
Wish­ing to build upon the best fea­tures of exist­ing Hague Con­ven­tions and oth­er inter­na­tion­al instru­ments, in par­tic­u­lar the Unit­ed Nations
Con­ven­tion on the Recov­ery Abroad of Main­te­nance of 20 June 1956,
Seek­ing to take advan­tage of advances in tech­nolo­gies and to cre­ate a flex­i­ble sys­tem which can con­tin­ue to evolve as needs change and fur­ther advances in tech­nol­o­gy cre­ate new opportunities,
Recall­ing that, in accor­dance with Arti­cles 3 and 27 of the Unit­ed Nations Con­ven­tion on the Rights of the Child of 20 Novem­ber 1989,
–in all actions con­cern­ing chil­dren the best inter­ests of the child shall be a pri­ma­ry consideration,
–every child has a right to a stan­dard of liv­ing ade­quate for the child’s phys­i­cal, men­tal, spir­i­tu­al, moral and social development,
–the parent(s) or oth­ers respon­si­ble for the child have the pri­ma­ry respon­si­bil­i­ty to secure, with­in their abil­i­ties and finan­cial capac­i­ties, the con­di­tions of liv­ing nec­es­sary for the child’s devel­op­ment, and
–States Par­ties should take all appro­pri­ate mea­sures, includ­ing the con­clu­sion of inter­na­tion­al agree­ments, to secure the recov­ery of main­te­nance for the child from the parent(s) or oth­er respon­si­ble per­sons, in par­tic­u­lar where such per­sons live in a State dif­fer­ent from that of the child,
Have resolved to con­clude this Con­ven­tion and have agreed upon the fol­low­ing provisions–

Since the Con­gress in many cas­es pass­es bills by the dark of night, the next thing was to ver­i­fy the fact that the Sen­ate has not rat­i­fied the UN Con­ven­tion on the Rights of the Child.
On the Unit­ed Nations Human Rights web­site, a Sta­tus of Rat­i­fi­ca­tion web­page was found that shows all human rights con­ven­tions and the coun­tries that have rat­i­fied them. The U.S. has not rat­i­fied that Con­ven­tion (treaty). When I checked THOMAS, the Library of Con­gress for leg­isla­tive activ­i­ties per­tain­ing to the Con­ven­tion, I found some­thing that
rein­forces the view that we have a bad case of sys­temic cor­rup­tion in our legal sys­tem that includes the fed­er­al leg­isla­tive bod­ies as well.

In House Bill H.R 4980, cit­ed as the “Pre­vent­ing Sex Traf­fick­ing and Strength­en­ing Fam­i­lies Act”


TITLE III – Improv­ing Inter­na­tion­al Child Sup­port Recovery…

SEC. 301. AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESS TO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES FOR INTERNATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT CASES. (a) AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF HHS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH MULTILATERAL CHILD SUPPORT CONVENTIONS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 452 (42 U.S.C. 652) is amend­ed — (A) by redes­ig­nat­ing the sec­ond sub­sec­tion (l) (as added by sec­tion 7306 of the Deficit Reduc­tion Act of 2005) as sub­sec­tion (m); and (B) by adding at the end the fol­low­ing: ‘‘(n) The Sec­re­tary shall use the author­i­ties oth­er­wise pro­vid­ed by law to ensure the com­pli­ance of the Unit­ed States with any mul­ti­lat­er­al child sup­port con­ven­tion to which the Unit­ed States is a party.’’.

PROVISIONS.—Section 459A (42 U.S.C. 659a) is amended—

by adding at the end the following:

In this part:

‘(1) FOREIGN RECIPROCATING COUNTRY.—The term ‘for­eign rec­i­p­ro­cat­ing coun­try’ means a for­eign coun­try (or polit­i­cal sub­di­vi­sion there­of) with respect to which the Sec­re­tary has made a dec­la­ra­tion pur­suant to sub­sec­tion (a).
‘‘(2) FOREIGN TREATY COUNTRY.—The term ‘for­eign treaty coun­try’ means a for­eign coun­try for which the 2007 Fam­i­ly Main­te­nance Con­ven­tion is in force.
‘‘(3) 2007 FAMILY MAINTENANCE CONVENTION.—The term ‘2007 Fam­i­ly Main­te­nance Con­ven­tion’ means the Hague Con­ven­tion of 23 Novem­ber 2007 on the Inter­na­tion­al Recov­ery of Child Sup­port and Oth­er Forms of Fam­i­ly Maintenance.’’;
(2) in subsection ©—

(A) in the mat­ter pre­ced­ing para­graph (1), by strik­ing ‘‘for­eign coun­tries that are the sub­ject of a dec­la­ra­tion under this sec­tion’’ and insert­ing ‘‘for­eign rec­i­p­ro­cat­ing coun­tries or for­eign treaty coun­tries’’; and
(B) in para­graph (2), by insert­ing ‘‘and for­eign treaty coun­tries’’ after ‘‘for­eign rec­i­p­ro­cat­ing coun­tries’’; and (3) in sub­sec­tion (d), by strik­ing ‘‘the sub­ject of a dec­la­ra­tion pur­suant to sub­sec­tion (a)’’ and insert­ing ‘‘for­eign rec­i­p­ro­cat­ing coun­tries or for­eign treaty countries’’.

Accord­ing to the THOMAS record of ALL CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS, H.R. 4980 was intro­duced by Michi­gan Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Dave Camp (R‑MI) on 6/26/2014. It was
“referred to the Com­mit­tee on Ways and Means, and in addi­tion to the Com­mit­tee on the Bud­get, for a peri­od to be sub­se­quent­ly deter­mined by the Speak­er, in each case for con­sid­er­a­tion of such pro­vi­sions as fall with­in the juris­dic­tion of the com­mit­tee concerned”.

This bill was passed under a sus­pen­sion of the rules with forty min­utes of debate. “On motion to sus­pend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote”. It was passed by the Sen­ate with­out amend­ment by Unan­i­mous Con­sent. It became Pub­lic Law 113–183.

What the Ways and Means and Bud­get Com­mit­tees did here is a strat­e­gy of Death by a Thou­sand Cuts. These two Com­mit­tees spon­sored and got leg­is­la­tion passed behind the cov­er of one of the most heinous crimes imag­in­able – sex traf­fick­ing. It imple­ments the bind­ing pro­vi­sions of the (unrat­i­fied treaty) of the UN Con­ven­tion on the Rights of the Child through the Hague Con­ven­tion on the Inter­na­tion­al Recov­ery of Child Support…which ref­er­ences the UN Con­ven­tion on the Rights of the Child. All of which means that with a wink and a nod, a small group leg­is­la­tors sold out our coun­try, sold out the states and sold out the Amer­i­can peo­ple by sub­ju­gat­ing our legal sys­tem to an international
sys­tem and they did it by cir­cum­vent­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion­al pre­rog­a­tive of Advice and Con­sent of the Senate.

To my way of think­ing, this is a sedi­tious con­spir­a­cy at a min­i­mum, trea­son at max­i­mum. Whether one says it out loud or not, sub­ju­gat­ing our legal sys­tem to an inter­na­tion­al sys­tem is de fac­to advo­cat­ing and act­ing to over­throw of our gov­ern­ment. The fol­low­ing is a link to the Cor­nell Law Library:

18 U.S. Code Chap­ter 115 – Trea­son, Sedi­tion, and Sub­ver­sive Activities

Read it and decide for yourself.