PDA

View Full Version : Recent Converted Ron Paul Supporter Has A Question




bloggershaven
06-10-2007, 03:34 PM
I have recently converted to support ron paul but i have a serious question i need help with so please be aware of its length. I have been doing my own research on ron paul and i found that he voted against the amber alert system now i was in the marines for four years then went on to be a police officer till i got laid of. Now my thing is ron paul stated it was unconstitutional which that maybe but i am so glad it was created i have seen used first hand and i will tell you this i would rather stop the wrong car and get sued then see a child get hurt, so my question is if he became president would he do away with such a wonderful thing. I like ron paul but there is always something you can find about a poltician you dont like but this would scare me as a parent of two boys ages 6 and 4 if he would get rid of the amber alert system. So if you could please get something back to me on this i would be very grateful and this hasnt changed my mind to vote for him but it is a concern to me i have more doubts about the other candidates more then ron paul so ron paul is my choice and i have been doing allot to support ron paul and will continue.

http://ronpaulssupport.blogspot.com/

llamabread
06-10-2007, 03:45 PM
Here are two threads I found with a quick search on this forum.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=2778&highlight=amber

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=416&highlight=amber

The second one isn't very good, but it is directly about the Amber Act. The first one is a very good response to your question though. (and I quote)

"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.

What does the Amber Alert bill have in common with raves, music festivals and other gatherings of the masses? Plenty. The Amber Alert is the missing child-response program that utilizes the resources of national law enforcement and media to notify the public when children are kidnapped. Its name comes from the tragic kidnapping and murder of 9-year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas, in 1996.
The Amber Alert easily passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate and 400-25 in the House.

Midnight riders on bills are becoming S.O.P. in Congress. They're last-minute additions tacked on to bills that are already travelling through Congress. To ensure their passage, these riders are quietly implanted in bills favored to win congressional approval. Their concealment avoids the routine public hearings required before the new laws are introduced. Midnight riders often have little or nothing to do with the actual bill they're attached to.

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.

Biden co-chairs the Senate NATO Observer Group and the Senate National Security Working Group. That apparently makes him an expert of raves and rock concerts.

In his home state of Delaware, Biden is known as a staunch crusader against drug abuse and underage drinking. The Senator is labeled a liberal for his opposition to the nomination of Attorney General John Ashcroft. He voted for the gay-friendly Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1996, which would have prohibited job discrimination based on sexual orientation by federal employers. Biden was also a major supporter of Senator Barbara Boxer's unsuccessful 1993 amendment to modify President Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gays in the U.S. military. As it stands, that policy still permits the dishonorable discharge of gay and lesbian soldiers due to sexual orientation.

Biden's rave rules say if someone is found with any amount of pot, or any other substance deemed illegal, the promoter of the event can be popped. This puts promoters at tremendous risk. They're liable, even if they are unaware of drug usage and have made a good faith effort to prevent it.

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.

It gets deeper. 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.

Word to the wise. If you're planning on attending the annual playing of the 1812 Overture at Blossom, leave the pot pipe at home. We don't want Loras John Schissel and his Blossom Festival Band to get busted."

Hope that answers your question.

beermotor
06-10-2007, 03:47 PM
Yeah - Ron Paul is the only guy in Congress with enough guts to call out these kinds of shenanigans. Although on a purely ideological level I think the Feds should not be in the criminalization / enforcement business, I recognize others disagree (and well it's a totally minor point anyway).

bloggershaven
06-10-2007, 03:51 PM
I did not now about joe bidens sneaky trick and thats why i asked for some more information and that kind of action is why i support ron paul so i wish to thank you for clearing that up for me. And yes it did help form all who wrote back.

legion
06-10-2007, 04:04 PM
Think about why the amber alert law even exists. It has a lot to do with the national media.

There are only about 100 of these stereotypical "stranger" kidnappings a year, most of these were of teenagers, and 20% were recovered with police help. Its a terrible crime, but in many ways it is promoted by the national media sensationalization of it every time one happens. These crimes are easily preventable by teaching your children to be security minded and just in general being a good parent. Your kid is more likely to be hit by a car because he wasn't paying attention to his surroundings than to be kidnapped.

Even England doesn't have a nationally mandated child abduction program. They do have a similar program, but its implemented at the county level! That should tell us something when a european country has a program implemented at the local level.

Be a good and responsible father and your children will grow up to be happy and healthy. There is no need for unreasonable fear.

austin356
06-10-2007, 04:19 PM
Dr. Paul would not do anything to disrupt the existing program, even if it is "unconstitutional" in this particular circumstance.


If something like this were to come up during his administration he would be fine with "standards approval" where the Congress adopts a Interstate Amber Alert Policy, where the states would then adopt such standards on a voluntary basis.


I know it might seem harsh, but one issue cannot be singled out to be given special interest. If that temptation is succumbed to, then the foundation of opposition to other things like Real ID is dramatically reduced.

UtahApocalypse
06-10-2007, 04:32 PM
As with many issues I think RP position is more that this should be differed to each states decision and not the responsibility of the federal government.

CJLauderdale4
06-10-2007, 04:41 PM
Ron Paul is probably against the Federal funding of the Amber alert program. It could be setup as an interstate alert program funded by the States, rather than the Fed.

Many States have such systems and arrangements...

angrydragon
06-11-2007, 12:33 AM
Also a lot of pork barrel spending.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.151: > [S.151.ENR] > SEC. 607. SAFE ID ACT

$5.9 million for more help against drug abuse.
$120 million for Public housing for victims. This should be left to charities and churches.

There's also this part of course...

SEC. 305. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, including any of its officers, employees, or agents, shall not be liable for damages in any civil action for defamation, libel, slander, or harm to reputation arising out of any action or communication by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, its officers, employees, or agents, in connection with any clearinghouse, hotline or complaint intake or forwarding program or in connection with activity that is wholly or partially funded by the United States and undertaken in cooperation with, or at the direction of a Federal law enforcement agency.

NewEnd
06-11-2007, 12:36 AM
Fuck the Rave Act, and Fuck Joe Biden for trying to tack it on there.

~~ a sometimes raver

sandersondavis
06-11-2007, 04:12 AM
These kind of issues are going to come up a lot as RP gets more exposure.

(Please remember that the campaign is only days old! Just a few days old, think about it. RP has had tremendous success)

We need to be honest and forthright about these questions and issues -- Simply put the constitution does not grant the feds the power to do this sort of thing (Amber Alerts).

That doesn't mean Amber Alerts are a bad idea. It just means that the feds are NOT ALLOWED to do it.

Well meaning people with good intentions have a lot to do with the current mess the country finds itself. Stick to the rules (the constitution) and everyone will be better off.

Marc Scott Emery
06-11-2007, 04:46 AM
deriding our Ron Paul about his vote against 'Amber Alert' with the assertion RP is defending child molesters with that vote.

The Rave Act is an insidious violation of freedom of association and was used in Utah in 2006 as a pretext to violently break-up a peaceful, licenced rave in a Utah park. It has many odious features as a previous poster very helpfully reiterated. I tried to point this out at the miscreant website but that person edits rebuttals of his hateful bile. The Rave Act is clearly unconstitutional and Dr. Paul, with his wonderful and admirable integrity, would be obligated to vote against it.

lucky
06-11-2007, 07:05 AM
It sometimes seems that RP is the only one that even reads what is in the bills that he votes on.

bloggershaven
06-11-2007, 08:35 AM
I would like to thank everyone for you response and for clearing up this matter for me. And as i have stated i am going to support ron paul no matter what happens and if i have another question of some thing i am not sure i will ask again like i did this time. But i will also post other information i find also.

Thank You All Very Much
John