I was curious as to what is the scope of the oversight of the following organization which of course has come under scrutiny on the PedoGate radar as possibly serving as a front agency for nefarious activities: The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
I located the following document:
It lists extensive information regarding rules and regulation correlating to the NCMEC, including polices regarding government funding of the agency via grants etc. Probably good to have some awareness of this so as to potentially detect loopholes within the regulations and oversight, whether intentional or unintentional.
I also ran into this document which I found interesting. It's called the KEVIN AND AVONTE’S LAW OF 2016:
To give a gist of as to what this Act is about and as you shall see just as to why it caught my attention:
The document states:
"Kevin and Avonte's Law updates and expands this expired
program, authorizing $2 million per year to cover not only
those with dementia but also those with developmental
disabilities. The legislation calls for the Attorney General to
award grants to assist eligible applicants in developing and
operating locative tracking technology programs. The locative
tracking technology would be used solely to assist in the
recovery of children with developmental disabilities in the
event of separation from parents or caregivers. The bill also
would change the name of the program to the ``Missing Americans
Alert Program.'' Under this legislation, participation in such a locative
tracking technology program would remain entirely voluntary.
The Committee intends that a guardian or parent, in
consultation with that child's health care provider, would make
any decisions about whether or not to accept a tracking device
for their child, and any such device should be the least
restrictive option available to help locate the child in the
event of a crisis. (Nothing in this Act would require use of
tracking technology if a parent or guardian does not believe
that use of such a device is not necessary or in the child's
interest.) The Committee further intends that tracking devices
assigned to children under this program should be limited to
non-invasive, non-permanent devices that do not create an
external or internal marker or involve the implantation of a
device or other trackable items."
It's actually quite interesting to note, that during the re-authorization of this act, there was an amendment made, quoted as following:
(1) in the section header, by striking “ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE PATIENT” and inserting “AMERICANS”
Full document:
I found that to be an interesting change. I wonder how broadly this can now be stretched out to where you could possibly do the implants legally given they are done low key and away from public scrutiny.
I just found it intriguing, since just recently there was a post made on voat about a human trafficking victim who was found have an RFID chip implanted in the victim's side.
I wonder who is doing the implanting under this act and what sort of technology or devices they are utilizing for tracking purposes. I wonder if they are perhaps using the very same make and model - RFID chip which was potentially found implanted in this victim.
I think those good questions to raise and they may very well lead to more interesting findings and help to further make sense out PedoGate and its operations.
Another interesting thing to note is what is stated under the limitations of this program:
*>(d) Limitations On Program.—
(1) DATA STORAGE.—Any tracking data provided by tracking devices issued under this program may not be used by a Federal entity to create a database.
(2) VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION.—Nothing in this Act may be construed to require that a parent or guardian use a tracking device to monitor the location of a child or adult under that parent or guardian’s supervision if the parent or guardian does not believe that the use of such device is necessary or in the interest of the child or adult under supervision.*
I find it interesting that under this section, there are listed absolutely no disease specific restrictions, which in my opinion would prevent from possibly parents, guardians, adoptive legal parents from potentially misusing or abusing this. I don't know. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it. I just thought something of that sort would be listed under the limitations sections.
Also another thing which is interesting to note is the involvement of the NCMEC within this program as stated within the Act.
Also yet another interesting thing to note is, the person who sponsored the amendment of the Act:
Sponsor:
Co-Sponsors:
- Richard Burr
- Christopher A. Coons ----- hmmm... Intersting last name
- Richard J. Durbin
- Chuck Grassley
- Amy Klobuchar
- Bill Nelson
- Thom Tillis
The details on the original proposal of the bill can be found here:
I'm curious as to what his motivation was behind it. I highly doubt it was for noble reasons although no doubt it was pawned off under noble pretenses. I have a difficult time believing it because quite frankly I believe Chuck Schummer is an evil serpent.
This lead may possible illuminate greater details about the extent to which Chuck Schummer has ties to activities disclosed within the findings of PedoGate research.
I'm going to continue digging into this further, but due to work, I do face challenging time constraints. Hence wanted to share this everyone so that those who possibly able to contribute can do so.
Also another interesting aspect which would be crucial to explore is:CPS and Foster Care System and the use of this program [of tracking implants] in correlation with children in the custody of the state.
I can see quite a massive potential for misuse and abuse of these provisions within these two particular areas.
view the rest of the comments →
Aaronkin ago
Co Sponsor Richard J. Durbin, never a good sign! Also with the number of potential children this law is aimed at, $2 million dollars is not going to go that far. But it's a different story if the program is really meant to be used for nefarious purposes.