It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by Kitilani
You have totally missed my point. This Scenario is pointing to future cutbacks where these people’s jobs are removed. And I then went on to point out that even if it had remained a state run program, these exact same cuts could be made, and the exact same problem could occur. So the point is that making it federal did not help the program, nor did it hurt it.
But this is totally off topic the Point to this thread is not who should fund it, but that some politician “Voted to not protect children from harm.” The debate on who should fund it is just what the thread has degenerated into. As no matter who funds it, states or Feds, it will be just as effective. The only real benefit so far is all states have it in place now, but there is no way to argue this would not have happened anyway. The entire topic about state vs. Fed. can never be answered, as there is no way to know what would have happened had it not been made Federal. Again people are making too much of the debate as that is not the issue. There are pro’s and Con’s to either setup. All of this debate is in hind sight, and is meaningless. The topic here is a vote that happened 8 years ago with no benefit of seeing what has happened since this time. And I still say the vote of “no” was a good vote. As there is no reason for this to be federal as it was indeed working fine as a state program. And it may have indeed, and in my opinion would have, spread to all states as they saw how effective it was over the years.
And before anybody gets all political on me, no I do not support Paul any more than I support all the other politicians. If they make a good call they make a good call. Tomorrow Paul may vote on something I do not agree with, and I will be right there with the others in saying it was a bad vote. I am not defending his vote here out of blind allegiance, where as the OP was indeed bashing the vote out of blind hatred. The OP tries to twist the vote into showing that Paul hates kids and is a terrible person. When in fact, the vote does no such thing. It was all about his belief that the Federal Government is too big, and does not need to be bigger. And in this case he was most likely right. The states could have continued to run it fine and almost assuredly at less cost.
Originally posted by robyn
OP --- You have provided a incomplete and inaccurate characterization of Dr. Paul's position vis a vis a national Amber Alert system. You were obviously attempting to inflame and mislead anyone who reads your post.
Either you dug out your copy of Alinsky's "Rules for Radcals" or you ae training for a spot on MSNBC.
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.
* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1104 has some good provisions aimed at enhancing the penalties of those who commit the most heinous of crimes, it also weakens the effective AMBER Alert program by nationalizing it. H.R. 542 also raises serious civil liberties and national sovereignty concerns by criminalizing intent and treating violations of criminal law occurring in other countries’ jurisdictions as violations of American criminal law.
Sometimes the "good" is the enemy of the "best".
A complete reading of Dr. Paul's address to the House would explain why the bill, although sounding noble would in fact potentially endanger the children it seeks to protect.
Also, as is often the case in DC, other legislation was snuck into the bill.
Joseph Liden sneakily snuck the Rave Act into a child abduction bill called the Amber Alert. This basically made the Rave bill easy to pass because anyone against it was going against child kidnappings. It was a sneaky move made by a guy bought out by music industry moguls. This is some reasons of why music is so controlled by Clearchannel and Viacom because of people like Biden.
Deeply embedded in the Amber Alert Act is a new law, which makes organizers of nearly every public event liable for prison time and fines up to $250,000, if drugs are found on the premises. That portion, which has already been given the moniker the "Rave Act," was buried in the Amber Alert bill by Democratic Senator Joe Biden. It's called the Rave Act because Biden believes those events promote drug use.
The bill also opened the door for increased federal surveillance.
Originally posted by Kitilani
"Well Mr. Smith, it seems that the people that snatched your daughter and ran have had more than enough time to leave the state by now. We could issue a federal Amber alert."
"No, no no. States rights and all that. I can just have another daughter."
This is the argument being made in this thread?
Is it less effective now than it was a decade ago or more?