September 22nd, 2007
01:10 PM ET
2 years ago

Paul: Time for U.S. to leave U.N.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

(CNN)–Saying "I'm a believer in trade," Rep. Ron Paul says the World Trade Organization, is threatening the sovereignty of the United States.

"The WTO has now been able to come to our Congress and dictate to us, we as a Congress, and as a party has endorsed the idea that we should raise taxes on certain corporations at the directive of the W.T.O in order to satisfy and be upstanding members of the W.T.O.," The GOP presidential hopeful said Saturday. "We should never raise taxes period, but certainly because the W.T.O. tells us to do so."

Paul said the W.T.O., and other organizations that support free trade are an outgrowth of the United Nations. As a result, "I support this notion of protecting sovereignty by getting out of the United Nations," he said. The Texas Congressman said he has sponsored legislation calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations since he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Paul made his comments before a weekend retreat for Michigan Republicans on Mackinac Island, Michigan. Most of his fellow rivals for the GOP nomination were also scheduled to address the group as well.

– CNN Political Desk Editor Jamie Crawford


Filed under: Race to '08 • Ron Paul
soundoff (140 Responses)
  1. Greg, Indian Trail NC

    Folks, I think many are missing a major point on the UN. Ultimately at some point we will be sold out as a nation to them and be under their control. Many don't realize it but a former president of the United States had already done so.

    Read on:
    (From the Phyllis Schlafly Report)
    In May 1994, Clinton signed a Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 25, asserting his authority "to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander" and under the United Nations rules of engagement. It is the most unconstitutional transfer of power in the history of America.(14)

    Again, do a google search on "clinton gives control to the United Nations". We need a president that does indeed believe in the Constitution and it is very important they understand that control of our country should not be given to an organization such as the UN. President Clinton already tried and his act was rejected by the enforcement of the US Constitution. What do you suppose will be on the agenda if we let another Clinton into office? What do you suppose may happen if we let any candidate in that fully supports the UN?

    Tell me, in all the positive things the UN has done, would any have occured without the US backbone and military power?

    The US should not control the Earth nor should the UN. Remember the saying, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believe you will see this occuring in short order if the UN is given control of the US.

    I would be more apt to vote for ANY candidate that realizes the United States of America should always be its own entity and should never be controlled by any other organization other than the one our forefathers put together many years ago.

    Any doubts to what I am talking about, do a search for PDD-25 on our official government search page: USASearch.gov

    2B||!2B

    September 23, 2007 10:56 pm at 10:56 pm |
  2. Greg, Indian Trail NC

    Note that in my previous post I mentioned SDD-25, although a lot of the article appears positive there were dangers of officially giving over military control (the problem is the fact that the ability to have combat control given to foreign commanders was left open in the article). Furthermore, this action also led to the acceptance of another treaty (see the below search suggestions).

    For further reading on the dangers of the UN:
    Search for:
    The Law of the Seas Treaty
    UN Control the internet
    Lookup Strobe Talbott (Clinton Foreign Advisor)

    Do some homework and you will begin to realize the true agenda of the UN. And as you do, you are likely to realize how dangerous it is.

    I will leave you all to ponder and research now.

    2B||!2B

    September 23, 2007 11:40 pm at 11:40 pm |
  3. Tim, Atlanta, GA

    People who support the U.N are idiots. Why on earth are people convinced that the U.N is a good thing when they poach the rights of Americans and are usually the reason we get involved in other countries messes? Ron Paul is 100% correct on this issue and to deny it is to be ignorant.

    September 24, 2007 01:58 am at 1:58 am |
  4. William W Halifax, N.S.

    In case, your not aware. Our world is in serious jeopardy currently. The following story compliments of CNN News puts this in proper perspective.
    And puts Ron Paul's notion of pulling the US out the United Nations in the category is belongs.

    Brzezinski: U.S. in danger of 'stampeding' to war with Iran

    "Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski likened U.S. officials' saber rattling about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions to similar bellicose statements made before the start of the Iraq war.

    I think the administration, the president and the vice president particularly, are trying to hype the atmosphere, and that is reminiscent of what preceded the war in Iraq," Brzezinski told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on Sunday.

    In October 2002, five months before Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was toppled for what the United States said was his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, President Bush said, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
    No evidence was found that Iraq was then pursuing such weapons.

    Earlier this month during a televised speech about Iraq, the president said, "Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts.to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region."

    Brzezinski also disapproved of Bush's statement. "When the president flatly asserts they are seeking nuclear weapons, he's overstating the facts," he said. "We are suspicious, we have strong suspicions, but we don't have facts that they are."

    Brzezinski, who served under President Jimmy Carter, said he is not sure how to interpret Iran's intentions. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful purposes.
    "I think it's quite possible that they are seeking weapons or positioning themselves to have them, but we have very scant evidence to support that," he said. "And the president of the United States, especially after Iraq, should be very careful about the veracity of his public assertions."

    But Henry Kissinger, the former national security adviser and secretary of state under President Nixon, appeared not to doubt Iran's alleged ambitions."I believe they are building a capability to build a nuclear bomb," Kissinger told CNN.

    "I don't think they're yet in a position to build a nuclear bomb, but they may be two or three years away from it."

    Brzezinski urged American officials to be patient, whatever Tehran's intentions may be. "If we escalate the tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war, which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for us," he said.

    "And just think what it would do for the United States, because it would be the United States which would be at war. We will be at war simultaneously in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we would be stuck for the next 20 years."

    Kissinger said the international community should enlist support from countries opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear power.

    "The current objective has to be to unite the countries that will suffer directly from Iranian nuclear weapons, the members of the Security Council and other countries in a program of diplomacy," he said.

    Serious consideration should be given on chosing America's next President. Not only for Americans but for every citizen around the world.

    September 24, 2007 09:58 am at 9:58 am |
  5. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    Ron Paul is a conservative almost to the point of advocating that the U.S. government should only print money and have a standing army to defend the country. Most of the other Republicans are the new Neo-Conservative varity that advocate forcible democracy which doesn't work.

    Ron Paul has also shown that he doesn't understand how much of a mess it is in Iraq and Afganistan has been created by the current administration. We broke it and now we have to put it back together. Given how little that Ron Paul understands that we just can't up and leave Iraq as much as many of us would love to, it might not be best to have his run the country.

    I think that most Republicans fail to see something about the government. It can work, when properly running, for the betterment of the U.S. and all of the legal citizens. The free market wouldn't correct problems unless forced to do so. Pollution, houselessness, discrimination are all problems that the free market didn't do on its own and needed government to correct (Federal, state, or local).

    September 24, 2007 10:01 am at 10:01 am |
  6. Ron, Raleigh, NC

    Kudos to Ron Paul. Someone is finally smart and principled enough to do this. We need out of this and Bush's scheming SPP plan to forward a North American Union.

    September 24, 2007 11:29 am at 11:29 am |
  7. Mary, Beaver, PA

    I'd like to know why every negative comment I make about government schools guarantees that my post won't be published on CNN blogs. Are public schools doing so well that criticizing them is beyond the pale?

    September 24, 2007 12:07 pm at 12:07 pm |
  8. Will - Miami, Fl

    I think that anyone who says the word libertarian with disgust should probably reword their statements to something like "Ron Paul, one who believes in freedom, liberty, and the Constitution above all else, republican candidate for president..." Now, say THAT with a disgusted tone and ask youself this questoin? Why do you desipise or hate a man that believes in the very same thing that Thomas Jefferson believed in (in case you don't know, Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independance and our third President)?

    September 24, 2007 01:30 pm at 1:30 pm |
  9. Swift, Loveland, CO

    This country has sunk unto a malaise of ignorance and denial over our loss of liberty and basic civil and economic rights. We are faced with so many challenges for the future on the fronts of energy, economic implosion, and terrorism and I've heard only one voice making sense and talking like a citizen rather than a lying politician. I will stand with him as a patriot and an American.

    September 24, 2007 10:23 pm at 10:23 pm |
  10. Tim, Derry, NH

    Ron Paul: A voice of principled reason in a quagmire of political insanity and corruption

    Q. Why has this small article on Ron Paul elicited the most comments of all stories posted here on CNN? A. The Ron Paul Revolution is taking the United States by storm.

    If you truly love liberty, vote for Ron Paul in 2008!

    September 25, 2007 12:36 am at 12:36 am |
  11. Frank, NYC

    Paul is certainly a scary thought in the seat of the presidency. He is a conglomeration of radical ideas from the left and right extremes. Withdraw from the U.N.? Why don't we just isolate ourselves like North Korea? That will do great for world stability and our economy as well! Seriously, what is he talking about? Since when do WTO/GATT rules trump U.S. laws? That was established 12 years ago with 1994 Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act. Clearly, the U.S. does not have any obligation to conform to WTO rules, especially if those rules are in conflict with U.S. laws. Also, WTO influence, wasn't it a brainchild of post WWII US thought (same with the UN). Paul's concerns are unfounded and completely ignore law/history.

    September 30, 2007 10:25 pm at 10:25 pm |
  12. Anonymous

    The U.N. needs the U.S. more than we need them. Lets face facts, the U.N. has failed, nor is it required for the U.S. to remain a engaged in the global community. The world doesn't need the U.N. to get along and history has shown that the U.N. has done nothing but drag the U.S. in to more wars.

    November 7, 2007 10:23 pm at 10:23 pm |
  13. TM, Annapolis Maryland

    Those just going out to say RP is a whacko are the ones who shouldn't be voting in the first place. Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it's whacko. I guess you're voting for Billary because 'we need a woman in the white house'. Expatriate yourselves. VOTE RON PAUL!

    November 13, 2007 09:01 am at 9:01 am |
  14. Afi K. James, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    This is why we need to vote for ron paul, because The UN is dangerous along with the rest of the garbage, we need to save the united states, while kucinich maybe interesting, but he's too a socialist, Let's vote for ron paul immediately, before this United states becomes a North American Union

    November 19, 2007 08:35 pm at 8:35 pm |
  15. Anthony Thornton MS

    For all of you who are not familiar with history, here is a history lesson: The United Nations was founded on the principles of eradicating war and communism. Why is it then that five years after the UN was founded we were in Korea (and are still there today)? There are thirty armed conflicts being waged worldwide. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are also the world's largest arms dealers. No tin-foil hate needed there.Why was it communism went from 200 million people enslaved to a billion? Are you that ignorant of history? Ron Paul is doing us all a favor by promoting the idea of kicking these sovereignty-circumventing leeches out of New York. People, wake up this is our country. OIF III Purple Heart veteran and lover of the Constitution.

    December 24, 2007 08:45 am at 8:45 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6