Ron Paul voted to not protect children from harm

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 
That's just tricky, Kro.

If you'll research just a LITTLE BIT further, you'll find out that while Paul voted yes on the *amendment* (since it simply re-directed funds that were otherwise slated for HUD IT upgrades), he voted NO against the bill itself, likely due to other issues already discussed.

In short, while Paul would rather see the poor helped than a government agency get additional funds for a slight increase in system speed, he still voted against further federal power and intervention for what he viewed as unconstitutional agencies and activities.

Roll no. 286 for HR 5576 is available here.

Take care.




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by SaturnFX
 


It's all about the language. When they can set the definitions for what constitutes "protecting the children" or anything else, anyone objecting to it commits political suicide. And people in general, lap it up.

Yes it is frustrating. And a very big reason I slap down, at every opportunity, the calls around election time for increased participation. What we need is less ill-informed participation and more education. By election day, if you don't know what's going on or why you should care, stay home.

If people need to be cajoled to vote, then they need to keep out of it.

NOW is the time to ramp up political awareness and education and intelligent discourse. And I think right here, on this site, we do a fairly admirable job of that. Maybe a lot of preaching to the choir, but there are more lurkers out there than you might think.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Just to further clarify -

He DID vote against the *bill* itself.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Thanks for getting this while I was comprising my same response!

edit on 8/10/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I think Kro must be a campaign worker for Ron Paul. Look at this great thread on Ron Paul, his ploy worked like a charm!

Oh well, we've been manipulated, but it was for RP so it's all good.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Alot of people apparantly are thinking this was a recent vote which it was not. The Amber Alert System has been in place for many years and has saved over 500 children. There was no comparable system before this which is the very reason this legislation was put into place. I would understand if the States could do it themselves but they simply weren't and had no intention too.

Since this has been in place there has been no government takeover of anything it is just a coordination between agency's to help find abuducted children and it has helped unite families that might not have had a chance under the previous various systems.

The Amber Alert System is simply a way to get an alert out nationwide and someone please explain how this is detrimental to anything? Each individual State's police organization decides on whether to issue an alert or not and it is not decided by the federal government. Here are the specifics of the how the law works.


An AMBER Alert or a Child Abduction Emergency (SAME code: CAE) is a child abduction alert bulletin in several countries throughout the world, issued upon the suspected abduction of a child, since 1996. AMBER is officially a backronym for "America's Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response" but was originally named for Amber Hagerman, a 9-year-old child who was abducted and murdered in Arlington, Texas in 1996. Alternate alert names are used in Georgia, where it is called "Levi's Call"[1] (named after Levi Frady); Hawaii, where it is called a "Maile Amber Alert"[2] (named after Maile Gilbert); and Arkansas, where it is called a "Morgan Nick Amber Alert"[3] (in memory of Morgan Chauntel Nick). Frady, Gilbert and Nick were all children who went missing in those U.S. states.



AMBER Alerts are distributed via commercial radio stations, satellite radio, television stations, and cable TV by the Emergency Alert System and NOAA Weather Radio[4][5] (where they are termed "Child Abduction Emergency" or "Amber Alerts"). The alerts are also issued via e-mail, electronic traffic-condition signs, the LED billboards which are located outside of newer Walgreens locations,[6] along with the LED/LCD signs of billboard companies such as Clear Channel Outdoor, CBS Outdoor and Lamar,[7] or through wireless device SMS text messages.



Those interested in subscribing to receive AMBER Alerts in their area via SMS messages can visit Wireless Amber Alerts, which are offered by law as free messages.[8] In some states, the display scrollboards in front of lottery terminals are also used. The decision to declare an AMBER Alert is made by each police organization (in many cases, the State Police or Highway Patrol) which investigates each of the abductions. Public information in an AMBER Alert usually consists of the name and description of the abductee, a description of the suspected abductor, and a description and license plate number of the abductor's vehicle, if available.


Now tell me again why anyone would vote against a way to get a message out about missing children?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32


Now tell me again why anyone would vote against a way to get a message out about missing children?


Again, because it's not authorized by the constitution. Did you see the info I posted where it shows Paul voted no on the section 8 housing? The vote yes was for the amendment, he voted no for the final vote.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
This is not a Constitutional issue whatsoever and my point was that Ron Paul turned it into one. The Constitution makes no mention either way about actions like this, the States are initiating this action so where is the dilema? It is simply allowing a message to travel across State lines and the States agree with it.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
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?


Here's the reason why this thinking person is opposing it; because "protection," and particularly protecting "the children," is one of the main pretexts that fascists use for attempting to erode personal freedom.

They also rely on the type of hysteria that is evident in your post, to carry said attempts through.

As far as referring to the American Constitution as a piece of paper is concerned; my guess is that you have that attitude, because you've never actually lived in a scenario where you don't have the freedoms that said piece of paper provides. However, don't worry; we're seeing more and more people being given the opportunity to experience such a scenario every day. I'm sure yours will come soon.
edit on 10-8-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Care to explain what in this law would erode your personal protections?

The people wanted this and I would task you to find one single parent who has a child abducted who would say not to splash this news in every corner of the country because it might hurt their rights.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I have to agree with Ron Paul on this one. The article clearly says that he isnt against protecting children, he just thinks the Federal government can't do it better than the State and Local.

If it ain't broke, dont fix it.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Are you really not getting it Kro?

The AMBER system is working AS IS with NO FEDERAL intervention. It is working well, as evidenced by the articles you are quoting. There is NO NEED for a federal program. It is being used mearly as a political ploy so that those who recognize that there is no need for a federal program can be labeled as "against children".

In Texas, the AMBER system is also used to locate missing elderly folks (by the moniker "Silver Alert"). Does the Federal program handle this?

And the states do, in fact, coordinate with each other and also the FBI (given that kidnapping is a federal offence). So again, no need for a federal program. Other than to waste more money...

It is ain't broke, don't fix it!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 





It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities...


I know someone pointed it out briefly but this little sentence alone is enough to throw this bill out in my opinion. They try to sneak this language into every bill! Anything to give them more abilities to spy on their citizens. Surely if they include it in a child protection bill, it would sound lovely, right?


Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act. He votes against big government CONSISTENTLY.

There is no reason to question him on this. He is doing what he has always done. State empowerment - less Federal management. Nothing different here. No flip flopping for sure! Which is why my signature will remain...



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by kro32
 


So we should just tear up the Constitution then, and do whatever is expedient "for the children" even if it assigns to government powers over and above what they're permitted to have by the Constitution? You know, the document's fairly specific about the powers the Federal Government has. If it isn't in there, they don't have it. Unfortunately, we have about 534 federal legislators who don't give a damn, and the bloated bureaucracy to match.

This is why we're where we are. Overall, how's it working out "for the children" and everyone else?

If they're big enough to give you and everyone else everything they want and need, they're big enough to take everything you have. In fact, to pay for it all, taking everything you have is pretty much inevitable. Of course, those who have nothing, don't care about that. And those numbers are growing.

See a pattern yet?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Reply to post by kro32
 


Lemme ask you, Kro …

What benefits would be brought to the table by federalizing Amber Alert?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by seedofchucky
" 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)



Thank you for explaining that. How easy it is for some people who are ignorant of the full facts to wrongly discredit, intentionally or not, someone's integrity.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by robyn
 


I knew it, I just knew they would add some stupid and unrelated legislation into this thing.

It should be illegal to piggyback legislation like this. If two pieces of law are not directly related, they shouldn't be in the same bill together.

Aside from that aspect of this bill, which alone is enough to sink it, RP is right. This is not the job of the federal government to do, and I have no doubt the states are currently doing a better job than the federal government could do anyway.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 




The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography.


What exactly does this mean? I dont agree with criminalising child porn drawings.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Care to explain what in this law would erode your personal protections?

The people wanted this and I would task you to find one single parent who has a child abducted who would say not to splash this news in every corner of the country because it might hurt their rights.


I agree with kro......I think we should do WHATEVER it takes to keep our children safe.......I personally have my 3 locked in a room good in tight. I've taped on mittens so that cant stratch themselves and rubber suits in case they fall down.....of course I've also had an rfd tag placed around their ankles and cat tracking device installed in their left ear.!!!

Seriously, I really feel you are using any means...even ridiculous means, to try to discredit one of the few people left who actually DO care about the welfare of this country and its families...
Shame on you Sir



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:32 PM
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


OP - the title of this thread is a lie. I'm going to ask you to change it to something accurate, please. Thanks.





new topics
 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join