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
Ron Paul is a certified lunatic, an unrepentent anti-semite, and is not qualified to be in the most powerful office in the world.
Finally, a voice of reason. All the other candidates from both parties just want us to keep sipping the kool-aid. Paul will have none of it, and that's what makes him great!
As a supporter of the United Nations, I applaud the comments of William W. of Halifax N.S.
Libertarians like Ron Paul do not understand the necessity of working WITH the other nations of the world - not just the most powerful three or four other powerful nations of the industrialized world. As Thom Hartmann often says, "We're all in this together." We cannot live just for ourselves. Dag Hammarskjold (former Secretary General of the U. N.) once said, "The door to happiness opens outward." Ron Paul's door swings inward. While some of his ideas do have merit (like getting out of Iraq and Iran), those who follow him will learn this the hard way. It's our failure to work with other nations, to give truthful information and answers to U. S. citizens, and other examples of errors in judgment that have caused our decline in the U. S. - NOT the United Nations.
Dennis Kucinich is the best Democratic candidate because he would cancel NAFTA and CAFTA (and yes, he would have the power to cancel those treaties). He would promote and support legislation to reduce global warming. He would reduce the cost of healthcare by making it "not-for-profit" ("Medicare for All"); and help build "Strength through Peace" while maintaining strong defenses against the real enemies of the U. S. I will work for Dennis Kucinich who has a much better grasp of the issues that will affect the U. S. and our entire planet.
The purpose of creating the UN was to provide a forum for nations to resolve issues that had previously been resolved on the battlefield. Not a bad idea. In fact, really the only reason not to accept the UN despite its shortcomings is if you want to do exactly what you want, when you want, regardless of the impact on other nations.
But forget about the UN; they're forgetting about us. New trading and political blocs like a resurgent China, unified Europe, and our old friends Japan and Russia, are fast eclipsing our power.
So when we say good riddance to the UN, we'll be a diminished economic power with a bad reputation and a big military. Pardon them if they say "good riddance...and please pay your debt on the way out the door."
The U.N.: preventing global nuclear war since 1945.
Ron Paul: not so much.
Wow, a Ron Paul article, and one that talks about his actual policy ideas, not just his surprising level of support!
I think a big problem for many people, seen here and elsewhere, is that they have become dependent on certain organizations. Please remember that, when Paul says he wants to get out of the UN, that doesn't mean the US will remove itself from the international dialogue. Please remember that abolishing the Dept of Education doesn't mean there will be no public schools. Please remember that dismantling the CIA doesn't mean that the US will not conduct intelligence activities, or doing the same to the Dept of Homeland Security and FEMA doesn't mean that the govt will have no way of responding to natural disasters or 'fighting terrorism'.
Finally a candidate that's not afraid to challenge these international organizations that takes away our sovereignty.These instutions have no legitimacy but their allow to influence our laws.Dr. Paul is right no one except the American people should have a say on how we run our country.
If Ron Paul is not the President of the United States in January 2009, this country is doomed for failure. Other than possibly Dennis Kucinich, all other hopefuls are just more psychopathic cogs in the Fascist machine.
Judge them by their deeds, not their empty words.
Oh, and watch out for King George seizing police state powers already legislated (thx Congress) when another false flag attack is performed. We might not have an election at that point.
Just because Ron Paul is against the UN doesn't mean that he wants to "work against the world instead of with it." Where do you people get this nonsense?
I'm so sick of this kind of irresponsible rhetoric. It's plain stupid and naive.
FACT: Worldwide, (and this is going to blow some of your minds, but bear with me and think this one through) we are living in one of, if not THE most peaceful time the world has ever seen. ("time" especially being defined in terms of the last ten years) That may be very hard for some Americans to grasp, especially post 9-11, but the simple fact is that countries aren't invading other countries, tens of thousands lining up against tens of thousands for the first time in history. The reason? A global community of nations dedicated to cooperation and peace. Obviously, not every country wants said peace, but nearly all do. The name of this conglomeration? The United Nations. Is it perfect? Definitely not... Rwanda is the perfect example that the UN needs to be more assertive in it's actions, and the Oil for Food program shows that a small degree of corruption has existed. However, the very existence and mutual cooperation brought on by the UN has brought 1000x more good than bad, and for a candidate for the Presidency of the most powerful nation of the world to say that he wants out of it is sheer stupidity. In fact, it smacks of aggression. We ought to be more careful in the future!
"Hillary is just a socialist who has no business running for president." Do you actually know what socialist means? I would much rather have a progressive president than a reactionary Ron Paul.
Actually Jo W from Seattle, our country is on the decline because we meddle in the internal affairs of other countires and they are pissed about it, as they should be. Trade with everyone, be friends with everyone, but don't intervene in other countries' internal affairs (ie overthrowing governments)- that is ron paul's positiion and is supported by the constitution.
Ron Paul '08
Ron Paul supports free trade, by the way. Just putting that out there. WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA are not free trade.
One only needs to look at Iraq to see how well things work out without the U.N. A total clusterfark. Besides, if we have to rely on a bunch of chicken-hearted, draft dodgeing Republicans, then we are truely in trouble as a Country. Sure, gid rid of the U.N., we all now how well that will end up. The first real conflict and America will fight alone, because only 1 or 2 countries will be there to help. Like Estonia and Guatamala. Only IDIOTS support Ron Paul and this nonsense.
Oh, and the so-called "progressives" are the real reactionaries. They want to bring us back to the age of tyranny and unlimited government.
First of all, the pro-UN socialist idiots can go to Kmart and buy a clue.
Dr. Paul is right on the money, as usual, and also as usual, those who can't handle having their government nanny disconnected when they see true patriots like Dr. Paul point out the naked elephant emperor in the room, they have coniptions, mainly because they lack the ability to mentally project what their world would be like without Big Mommy.
Fact is, the governmental instututions of the human race are not mature enough as a whole for a truly functional, non-socialist, freedom-oriented, successful one-world-government, and until republican forms of government (see the Constitution) are prevalent in the world instead of doomed mock parliamentarian socialist oligarchies or dictatorships that are the majority now, they never will be ready for it, either, and that's the fundamental flaw in the entire UN concept and the so-called reasoning that supports that failed and meaningless socialist organization.
Someone here referenced Thom Hartmann over on Air America. Mr. Hartmann, when it comes to economics and libertarianism, is a complete buffoon and is not anything near an expert on either. I would suggest for those people who think otherwise, or for those who are just "scared" of libertarianism, or have no real understanding of it at all beyond the negatives they are spoon-fed by the corporatist-agenda Old Media morons, to simply overcome your fear and ignorance by doing your research. Go read Murray Rothbard, Adam Smith, Milton Freidman, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, and Ludwig von Mises and get the truth for yourself about the only political and economic systems that actually work, the systems that this nation was founded on and propsered under until 1913 when we screwed up and sold ourselves out.
Non-interventionism is not isolationism; go read George Washington's farewell address for more wisdom and details. We have strayed so far from his words.
It's no crime to say "America first" and it's no crime to tell the rest of the world to grow up and figure it out themselves and get to our standard of living rather than riding our coattails. It's only the small-minded who do not want people of the world to become better who think otherwise.
I for one and sick and tired of putting the entire world before oursevles, footing the bill, while in the meantime I bust my butt to educate myself and care for my family to wind up taxed to death to support international freeloading out of my wallet while I struggle to make ends meet. I want the fruit of my labor to stay with me and leave the decisions about what I do with it up to me, not some brainless bureaucrat in Sacramento, New York, or DC. I want that for my own well-being, my wife and child, and my community, and our future. Dr. Paul gets that, and that's the message of freedom he's promoting: freedom and responsibility to the people and power away from centralized government. That's libertarianism!
Dr. Paul represents the alternative view of less governemnt, more personal freedom and responsiblity, and common sense. All the other candidates propose only more government in various forms, more of the same problems and non-solutions, and more contempt for the people. I CHALLENGE ALL of the anti-Paul people on this blog and others to examine the candidates in that light and see what you find, and ask yourself how their proposals will negatively affect you, because they will.
Well Ron Paul is the only one who has a chance of being president that wants to pull us out of iraq. i know i'm tired of the united states being the world police. and 70% of america agrees with me. Hillary wont pull us out of iraq, Obama wont pull us out of iraq, and none of the other republicans will pull us out and that is the main issue of this election.
Please, don't take it out on the Canadians. And like a few other posters don't assume that you can be an island onto yourself. Maybe the person from Halifax, Canada, went a little too far with the details. But then look at me, I post often. Also the UN and Co may be a bit unnerving these days. Is also true that the US pay at least 1/2 of the UN budget. We come to the US because it is a hospitable place.
In the past year you had to endure Heads of State calling your President all sorts of names while on the UN podium.
But THERE IS A REMEDY under international law that deals with that kind of situations. It is called the "persona non grata" doctrine. The problem is that politicians don't know it. To my knowledge, the last time it was used was in 1969 by Canada to eject French President De Gaulle for uttering the ominous words: "Vive le Quebec, Vive le Quebec LIVRE!". The Prime Minister of Canada gave him 24 hrs to leave Canada. He did so in 6 hrs.
The doctrine overrides diplomatic immunity. Your President 1.should have invoked the doctrine while Chavez was still speaking. 2.should have put him in the hands of the military with the order to eject him at once; and 3.deliver him to Cuba under heavy F16 escort. All done in 40 minutes.
Why was that not done? Wouldn't look good? Then my question to you is: why complain about the ugly things the world does to you, when it is you who doesn't have a firm hand?
He would make a terrible president. He is a Republican and he has terrible posture. Not to mention he's from Texas. I do agree that we should get out of the U.N., they are a group of morons. I think the U.N should be closed and re-opened somewhere in France.
Ron Paul, your bad for America, and bad for the world. Thank god you have no chance at winning the presidency, otherwise I would fear the next 4 years.
This guy is right, I always wondered why is United States always the guy doing all the lifting in UN?
We contribute most of the money, we contribute most of the soldiers, and we contribute the image....and for what?
UN does nothing but cause problems because it allows some 3rd world nations to dictate policy. Why? Because they hide behind the might of the United States.
Why does United States need the UN? Why can't we have diplomatic relations with the actual countries? Why can't we keep our soldiers out of pointless wars, to enforece UN resolutions?
Frankly I'm suprised at some of you people's comments. United States is a soverign nation, it needs to represent the interests of its people. It does not need to take marching orders from other countries.
Want an example? UN is working on passing a resolution that would impose total gun control on the citizens of United States.
So I agree with Mr. Paul...America needs to come first
The post by Mike from NY is a good one. Ron Paul supports free trade with all nations. But just look at what we did in Iraq and that was to enforce UN resolutions. How well has that turned out? Talking with nations and trading with them is a great policy, but getting involved in these needless wars and nation building projects are not. This is Ron Paul's reasoning for getting out of the UN and it's a good one. And to the person who said that we'd be isolating ourselves, what do we do now when we invade other countries and tell them how to live? 9/11 was caused by our interventionalist policies and the UN contributes to this by having to live by their rules. By not invading other countries and killing their familes there would be a lot less people wanting to kill us.
Defend this country, defend our borders, trade and talk with all nations, promote peace by setting a good example and have them want to emulate us. This is a lot better policy than starting wars in the middle east, draining our economy by building up nations, and borrowing $3 million a day from the Chinese and Japanese to pay for it. Stop thinking that we can change the world by forcive arms and start worrying about this country's needs like defense, health care, and education because we need it.
I am sure the rest of the world would be happy if the United States decides to pull out of the UN.Because well the United States controls the UN and therefore tries to control the rest of the world.
Does Ron Paul think UN cannot be reformed ? US is seriously devoid of diplomats I guess.
Ohhh, isn't it a very easy indicator that Ron Paul DOES NOT understand international politics? What is he thinking?