Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul voted to not protect children from harm

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Ron Paul voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.



This is the bill he voted against:


Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography. Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003


Now you are probably asking yourself why any normal thinking person would oppose such a thing as this. Well his reasons are that it's not in the Constitution......what?


However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.


chip91.wordpress.com...

I'm sorry but protecting children should be bound by no jurisdiction whatsoever and should be a priority no matter what any piece of paper says. To date there have been 523 children recovered from predators using this system and they might very well be dead if it had been up to Ron Paul.

www.missingkids.com...

Ron Paul for President...yeah ok



+166 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Ron Paul votes no on 99 percent of bills. His argument would be the federal government does not need to protect the children, that is the job of the parents. As a parent I agree.
edit on 10-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


+104 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
" would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions"



He doesnt want the government involved in the program . He wants local governments to deal with it because its more effective that way and more local ....


Bigger government is what he has always opposed

What are you on glue today?

Ron Paul is doing and saying what he always has


less government


You clearly didn't understand Ron Paul


Of course he cares of the safety of children



"To date there have been 523 children recovered from predators using this system and they might very well be dead if it had been up to Ron Paul" - op


Kind sir these are harsh words for mr Paul . may i remind you that he was a doctor who delivered more then 4000 babies?

Ron Paul has a special place for children in his heart and is looking out for them even more then the fed government is . He really is a man of principal how do i know ? His 30 year track record =/
edit on 10-8-2011 by seedofchucky because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


So your kid get's abducted from a playground or somewhere and you wouldn't want every available resource to get that child back?

I find that hard to believe.


+84 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
The states are completely capable of managing this program.

They are managing it now, it doesn't need to become a federal program.


+43 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Paul is right.Those words should bring terror to all parents

"I am from the government and I am here to help"


+30 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Would you like me to get some more hay for that strawman you're building? He doesn't think the federal government has any business making laws like this and I happen to agree. Won't somebody please think of the children.


+23 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Ron Paul voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.



This is the bill he voted against:


Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography. Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003


Now you are probably asking yourself why any normal thinking person would oppose such a thing as this. Well his reasons are that it's not in the Constitution......what?


However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.


chip91.wordpress.com...

I'm sorry but protecting children should be bound by no jurisdiction whatsoever and should be a priority no matter what any piece of paper says. To date there have been 523 children recovered from predators using this system and they might very well be dead if it had been up to Ron Paul.

www.missingkids.com...

Ron Paul for President...yeah ok



Ron Paul voted against the bill because it makes the current Amber system that is in place Federal rather than local. He wants it to remain efficient and effective.

Take your blinkers off.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by seedofchucky
 


I understand your point however the individual jurisdictions were not doing the job effectively and this is why the Amber Alert System was developed and it has had very good results. As I stated I believe that the protection of children should know no bounds in the political areana.

Let there be multiple systems in place if need be to get these kids back. Some issues go beyond it's this persons responsiblilty or that persons.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
To date there have been 523 children recovered from predators using this system and they might very well be dead if it had been up to Ron Paul.


Sure, blame Ron Paul and not the predators who kidnapped the children. Children are still kidnapped even with the system so is that the amber alert's fault?


+85 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
For someone who has a picture of the US Constitution as their avatar, you need to learn more about Federalism and the intended role of the federal government.

Letting Washington bureaucrats manage anything is a recipe for disaster.

edit on 10-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


+26 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
lol OP do you have any reading comprehension at all?


He is saying that federal involvment will hurt a program that already works, you dont think states communicate with each other on the info of missing children? really? he is voting no to having the government impose its restrictions and other BS to a program that is already effective.



but no no no RON PAUL HATES CHILDREN


+6 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


We have to be careful as to not get wrapped up in the emotions of these types of legislation. It may look bad that he voted it down, but his reasoning is 100% spot-on!

Emergency systems are always better when coordinated locally, as the Fed has a history of red-tape and politics tainting the flow of such systems.

At least he is consistent!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by filosophia
 


So your kid get's abducted from a playground or somewhere and you wouldn't want every available resource to get that child back?

I find that hard to believe.


So long as we are throwing out hypotheticals, what if I went to the police and the federal amber alert system and they couldn't do anything? What then?


+8 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
All I have to say is CPS, that is enough for any intelligent person to know never, ever, ever, entrust the federal government with your children.


+11 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
When was the last time the Federal Government got involved in something and actually made it better? If it has anything at all to do with the well being of a US citizen keep the Federal Government as far away from it as possible!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Have we not learned our lessons yet to keep big government out of our lives? Ron Paul knows this and is working his darndest for us even if some don't understand his reasonings, he is thinking of the people, he is just one step ahead.

Reading the portion of the bill quoted in the op also shows that the bill would have invaded into more of our liberties, even though it is worded to invade only child pornographers and molesters seemingly, that is a slippery slope. Let the justice system work itself, without this type of bill.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Must have ya pretty scared. Seems the attempts at derailing him are creeping up. Ah well, keep looking maybe you'll find something, we'll know when ya do because the MSM isn't a shill for him like Obama and they'll release anything and everything.


+14 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 

"Ron Paul voted to not protect children from harm"
(I bet he kicks puppies and makes bunnies cry as well)

Seriously? We're gonna get bent out of shape because Paul didn't want another federal program?
*gasp*
The horror, the horror. . . . .


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I concur and would like to add this:
This thread is just an example of nitpicking when the OP doesn't have the facts.
Or is highly misunderstanding the original article.

Why anyone on earth would try to make RP look bad is beyond me.
The man is a true congressman.
At least he knows the limits of gov't.
Unlike 99% of CONgress and the public.


2000th post FTW!







new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join