Families
When it comes to protecting are children, Ron Paul really is “Dr. No.”
Ron Paul voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
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
NOT ONE UNITED STATES SENATOR VOTED AGAINST THE AMBER ALERT.
410 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTED FOR THE AMBER ALERT, RON PAUL WAS ONE OUT OF 14 TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003
Conservatives and Libertarians United Against Ron Paul 
Chris said
Your reference points to the PROTECT act, not the Child Abduction Prevention Act (vote number 2003-89).
It may be enlightening for your readers to see Ron Paul’s comments on Amber Alert:
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to punish severely those who sexually abuse children. In fact, it is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys on children. Therefore, I certainly support those parts of H.R. 1104 which enhance the punishment for those convicted of federal crimes involving sexual assaults on children.
* I also support the provisions increasing the post-incarceration supervision of sex offenders. However, given the likelihood that a sex
[Page: E530] GPO’s PDF
offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life?
* 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.
* Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1104 also exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country–not the U.S. Congress–to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-US citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.
* Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it a Federal crime to “travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.” I do not think this is a practical approach to the problem. It seems that this bill actually seeks to probe the conscience of anyone who seeks to travel abroad to make sure they do not have illegal or immoral intentions. Is it possible or even advisable to make thoughts and intentions illegal? And how is this to be carried out? Should Federal agents be assigned to each travel agency to probe potential travelers as to the intent of their travel?
* At a time when Federal resources are stretched to the limit, American troops are preparing for imminent military conflict, and when we are not even able to keep known terrorists out of our own country, this bill would require Federal agents to not only track Americans as they vacation abroad, but would also require that they be able to divine the intentions of these individuals who seek to travel abroad. Talk about a tall order! As well-intentioned as I am sure this legislation is, I do not believe that it is a practical or well-thought-out approach to what I agree is a serious and disturbing problem. Perhaps a better approach would be to share with those interested countries our own laws and approaches to prosecuting those who commit these kinds of crimes, so as to see more effective capture and punishment of these criminals in the countries where the crime is committed.
* 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.
reference: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record&page=E529&position=all
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record&page=E530&position=all
infragreen said
Good points by RP. Blogger PWNT.
andy davenport said
ahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa…..
“NOT ONE UNITED STATES SENATOR VOTED AGAINST THE AMBER ALERT.
410 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTED FOR THE AMBER ALERT, RON PAUL WAS ONE OUT OF 14 TO VOTE AGAINST IT.”
THAT’S BECAUSE THEY PANDER TO EVERY “FEEL GOOD” PIECE OF SOCCER MOM LEGISLATION THAT COMES DOWN THE PIKE !!!!!!
Apparently, like GW, you believe the Constitution “is just a GD piece of paper”, huh ?
Chip91 said
Andy – It passed 508 – 14. That’s all you need to know. This “FEEL GOOD PIECE OF SOCCER MOM LEGISLATION” helps protect children from sex offenders. And it has made a difference. This is just a typical example of Ron Paul’s fringe views. It’s him vs. everyone else in America.
Chris said
That’s fantastic!!! It’s obvious that Ron Paul actually thinks through these problems. he made some really excellent points. Obvously agrees with the concept but disagrees with how they wanted to do it. (More federal government expansion) GO RON PAUL!!!!
spikecohen said
Once again, Vagena Hurtz fails the American people.
“I am against pedophile sex predators….but but but but but but but but”
No thanks.
DCnLA said
That was him speaking on just the house bill for the amber alert. The bill that actually became law also has 2 other bill attached to it… The RAVE Act and the SAFE ID Act… which, thanks to those who allow emotions to over-ride wisdom, also got passed as laws… Of course the one’s who attached them were counting on that all along.
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.
This puts concert and rave promoters at tremendous and unnecessary risk. It also creates a new sport for prosecutors who often use their position for future political ambitions. Just ask Rudy Giuliani.
So what will Biden’s bill accomplish? Enforcement would lead to higher insurance rates for promoters. This means promoters, to cover their to-the-roof premiums, may be forced to increase the cost of attending events defined by Biden’s rider. It also puts the damper on any roving raves now or in the future. It’s not worth the risk of jail time and heavy fines.
As it reads, the rider targets organizers of any event. This includes a permit-holder for a demonstration. Literal enforcement of the bill puts any promoted large public gatherings at risk. Just think of it as another chunk out of the Bill of Rights.
I can just picture Joe Biden, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, and all the others in the Senate, rubbing their hands together, silently giggling in glee and thinking “Suckers!”
Keatron said
WOW…this just shows how some people don’t research true meaning behind ron paul. It’s great to see posts owning this site! People don’t look behind the Yes’s and the No’s. It’s hard to do, but thank you for people who did it for these poor folks
Jeff said
Research! Research! Research! Stop making yourselves look like fools that do not do Research! Ron Paul for president!