Ron Paul Child abuse record.?

Question

I support Ron Paul on many issues however something I recently read disturbed me. This was in a dig story. Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. Voted NO to mandatory life sentences for two-time child sex offenders. Voted NO to making visual illustrations of child pornography a crime. Voted NO to making it a crime to take a trip to a foreign country to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. If this is true or false please tell me so. What justification could he have used to vote this way. This is not constitutional. Its just wrong.

Type in Ron Paul child predator bill into google. Digg has it under Ron Paul: Pro child predator candidate. And I even heard about his voting on this in a Jackie Mason Youtube video. I know there are many distortians about Ron Paul. But if someone who real study his career can adress all of these No votes I would be relived and thankful

jessicai do you know where i could read or hear the full text online?

I have read from many sources that the Rave Act, that made it legal for the government to hold business owners and property owners responsible for actions that someone else does on there property was atteched and i agree thats wrong

Answer 1

From Ron Paul library:
“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.”

"Voted NO to mandatory life sentences for two-time child sex offenders"

Sentencing should be decided by individual judges. Similar laws have led people to having life sentences, for minor crimes.

The next two are not Fed government issues..

But this is his explanation:
"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?

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." -Ron Paul library

To sum it up, Paul is not against catching child predators.. his opposition is to leaving the sole responsibility to the fed government, because a “one size fits all” approach rarely works..This is a serious issue that needs to be handled effectively. States and police departments are better suited to handle their specific problems.

And if you read through his full speech, he agreed for the most part with the bill, his main objection was really to the riders as the Dude pointed out

EDIT: To Push

CIA/FBI: There are several different intelligence gathering agencies. He wants to end the bureaucracy and consolidate.. NOT ABOLISH THEM.. he is for gathering intelligence

The phasing out of the IRS will not eliminate said taxes only the income tax which is mainly used to pay back interest to the fed for printing their worthless paper

and he has already stated that he will have to work with Congress if elected, like any other president would have to..

EDIT: Cyril, I found this on www.ronpaulibrary.org

"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 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."

Answer 2

These things are not federal issues. The Constitution says that Congress does not have the power to make laws about sex offenses or child abuse. These might all be good ideas, but Paul is right to vote against them, because they would violate the highest law of the land. The proper venues for laws concerning child abuse are the state legislatures. -yk

Answer 3

The specific portion of the bill that he didn't support is as follows:
Ron Paul on Families & Children
"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"
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Families_+_Children.htm

Answer 4

Yes Paul did vote against the bill you mention. Evidently his issue was with the increased use of wiretapping and surveillance with respect to child pornography.
http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Families_+_Children.htm

Giggles what you are saying is not fair. Ron Paul fans screech about his voting record all the time. It is only fair that they should have to explain it all, not just the bits that suit them.
The question does not bash Paul in the least - it asks if something he has heard is true. It seems you are being a little too thin skinned regarding Paul. If you believe this is not a fair representation of Paul why not just answer the question?

Answer 5

well because thought crimes are not a effective way to rule a country(that is for the making visual illustrations, it concerned computer animated pictures) , and he voted no on the amber alert because it had a rider on it that expanded the wiretapping and electronic surveillance that the government can do.

if a law concerning just the amber alert would come up with no riders on it he would vote yes on it,

Answer 6

That about sounds like the Ron Paul I know about.

Libertarians traditionally vote to shrink government and reduce laws, even if it means people will be hurt due to no protection under the law. I am libertarian up to a point, but I have an education that lets me see why laws that protect children are very necessary.

Ron Paul does not have anything in common with me. Why he runs on the Republican ticket, I do not know. It is good that he only attracts less than 5% of voters. It is also very good that each voter can only vote ONCE on election day.

Not only children will be at risk from a Ron Paul presidency. EVERYBODY will be if he is actually able to convince Congress to tear down the CIA, the FBI, the IRS, etc.

The man reminds me of Sybok (Spock's brother) on Star Trek V. The man is insane.

Answer 7

wow jess is beauti really knows her stuff !!!! - she puts a foot in every mouth against ron paul here - enough said

Answer 8

you just might be the no. 1 ron paul basher on the net. you seem to be a little partial.

just go ahead and accuse him of more crazy stuff, it won't matter. go help the one you want and tell why.

Answer 9

What were the other stuff on these bills? Generally he is most interested in getting rid of the unneeded pork. I understand that most of the legislation you are talking about are more than one issue on them.

Answer 10

You do realize you can't vote, right....

Answer 11

a link would be nice, it is suspect without one