PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul's Congressional Opponent: Ron Paul Supports Child Abduction




RonPaulFanInGA
10-06-2010, 01:38 PM
http://i55.tinypic.com/fdzfyr.jpg


hXXp://halfempth.blogspot.com/2010/10/cd-14s-ron-paul-votes-for-abducting.html

It was a stunning nearly unanimous vote in the House last Wednesday. A stunning vote for HR 1326, a non-binding resolution “calling on the Government of Japan to address the urgent problem of abduction to and retention of United States citizen children in Japan, to work closely with the Government of the United States to return these children to their custodial parent or to the original jurisdiction for a custody determination in the United States, to provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children, and to adopt without delay the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.”

Because, you see, Japan does nothing to address the requests of American parents whose children have been illegally removed from their homes and taken to live in Japan.

The vote in the House was 416-1.

Ron Paul, the guy who fellow-Texans living in CD-14 continually return to congress every two years for reasons that escape me, cast the lone NO vote.

In effect, Ron Paul voted in favor of the Japanese Government and its foot-dragging ways in handling cases where American children are taken from their homes and forced to live in Japan. Japan, which didn’t sign the 1980 Hague Convention, makes no bones about the fact that they protect people who are essentially kidnappers. Kidnappers of American children.

And Ron Paul, makes no bones about the fact that he supports them in this practice.

Ron Paul has another credible opponent this year in Robert Pruett. Pruett, who recently retired from his job as Chief of Police of the city of Galena Park, can restore honor and integrity to CD-14, a congressional district that is just about right now the laughingstock of American politics.

This vote of Paul’s last Wednesday is just another one of many of his votes against good and decency, all just so that Dr. Paul can make his obscure Libertarian point. The point is lost on me this time. I understand why Paul voted against Mother Theresa’s and Rosa Parks’ Congressional gold medals because his of his Libertarian principle about not using taxpayer money to buy gold. But this NO vote, one that supports international kidnapping, leaves me stunned.



http://www.facebook.com/pages/Robert-Pruett-for-US-Congress/132651456762178

hXXp://www.pruettforcongress.com/

jmhudak17
10-06-2010, 02:44 PM
"Ron Paul votes for abducting children to Japan"

:facepalm:

specsaregood
10-06-2010, 02:46 PM
"Ron Paul votes for abducting children to Japan"

:facepalm:

Shouldn't it properly be: Ron Paul votes AGAINST abducting children from Japan?

jmhudak17
10-06-2010, 02:50 PM
This idiot is just trying to stir up controversy to get votes. It's what they all do.

Ricky201
10-06-2010, 04:55 PM
I feel like almost blowing a rally horn and yelling "CHARGE!".

Stary Hickory
10-06-2010, 04:57 PM
He is taking classes from Grayson, great advertising angle

JacobG18
10-06-2010, 05:47 PM
someone is running against Paul :rolleyes:

paulpwns
10-06-2010, 05:52 PM
Paul brings home the bacon for his district, that is why he keeps getting reelected. Of course this democrat " doesn't understand why" he is continually elected. He also calls the greatest politician of our time a " laughingstock". What a joke he is.:p

Matt Collins
10-06-2010, 05:56 PM
If a tree falls in a forest does anyone hear it?

libertybrewcity
10-06-2010, 06:09 PM
What is the bill he voted against? I don't think condemning something is so bad. It doesn't really have an effect on the budget or anything else for that matter.

I don't think we have the full story of the bill. It probably included some spending or something...

Number19
10-06-2010, 06:54 PM
What is the bill he voted against? I don't think condemning something is so bad. It doesn't really have an effect on the budget or anything else for that matter.

I don't think we have the full story of the bill. It probably included some spending or something...It was HR1326.

More interesting, yesterday (Tues) our local paper published a Letter to the Editor that really slandered Paul in its language. What was interesting is that it came from Richardson, which is up near Dallas.

I responded with the following:


To the editor,

Ken Connelly's attack against Ron Paul was unwarranted and slanderous.

Ron Paul DID NOT "(vote) in favor of international child stealing." This is a lie.

Ron Paul DOES NOT "condone" child abduction. This is a lie.

HR1326 was a "resolution" condemning Japan's political non-recognition and compliance to International Parental Abduction. Let me repeat - HR1326 was a RESOLUTION.

Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalists and his constituents in District 14 are well aware of this. He consistently votes NO to all resolutions, believing rightly that this is not a Constitutionally authorized function of Congress.

Our nation is currently facing multiple crises, all of which were created by Congress, both Republican and Democrat, abusing and abandoning the Constitution.

Ron Paul's lone vote was correct.
I have almost a 100% record of my letters being published. I'm hopeful this one will be.

kpfareal
10-06-2010, 07:00 PM
Has anyone tried "liking" his page and posting in the comments???

EvilEngineer
10-06-2010, 07:25 PM
The reason Dr. Paul never votes for things like this is that it is not a constitutional power of the congress to condemn or condone anything... it's merely political pandering and posturing and Dr. Paul doesn't support it no matter what the issue is.

One reason I love the good doctor... if it's not constitutional he votes against it.

james1906
10-06-2010, 07:59 PM
What kid wouldn't want to be abducted to Japan? Pokemon, bullet trains, baseball, Hello Kitty, crazy game shows......

Number19
10-06-2010, 08:19 PM
What kid wouldn't want to be abducted to Japan? Pokemon, bullet trains, baseball, Hello Kitty, crazy game shows......This whole case is a little unusual because American jurisprudence comes down very strongly in support of the mother's right to custody. In this case, it gave custody to the husband because he was the American citizen, but the 6 year old child has duel citizenship - Japanese and American. Once the mother got her son back to Japan, the Nippon courts recognized her parental rights and the Japanese citizenship.

It's now simply an international custodial battle, with neither side being right or wrong.