New CNN political ticker: Paul: Time for US to leave UN

[yoshimaroka]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/22/paul-time-for-us-to-leave-un/

(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

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

There's Josh in the pict behind him.

[bygone]

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c28/chantalemo/2af480fe50128bd2ec33bde5de69cacd.gif

[ItsTime]

Some of the comments on the CNN page are pretty interesting o_0.

His position needs to be better presented, leaving the UN does not mean leaving international dialog. People are just ignorant and need to be educated. Some of the comments are out right scary.

[Noog]

Some of the comments posted under the article show just how far we still have to go...

[bygone]

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c28/chantalemo/2af480fe50128bd2ec33bde5de69cacd.gif

[Ron Paul Fan]

Especially Susan's from Florida. Mike from New York cleared it up pretty nicely. It's just like how Dr. Paul said that by getting rid of the CIA and FBI we'd still have intellegence gathering. Some of these comments are very ignorant. Here's what some people think President Paul would do: Withdraw from the UN, stop trading with every country, and declare war on the whole world. I left a comment that what we're doing now is more isolationist than what Ron Paul would do. Sadly, some people just don't realize this.

[rodent]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/22/paul-time-for-us-to-leave-un/

(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

The people making comments against RP are total sheep. What are they thinking? Do they not understand that these international entities take away our right of self-rule?

Where do these people think they live? The smurf village? The UN does not care about its smurfs like a Papa Smurf, I can tell you that.

[bygone]

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c28/chantalemo/2af480fe50128bd2ec33bde5de69cacd.gif

[FluffyUnbound]

Bygone, the Republican party platform called for the elimination of the Department of Energy and the Department of Education for many years. Ronald Reagan ran for President twice on that very platform, and then couldn't keep the campaign promise.

It's not really that far "out there" in the history of Republican party ideology. It's only 8 years of Bush growing every department as fast as he could that has made it look "out there".

[bygone]

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c28/chantalemo/2af480fe50128bd2ec33bde5de69cacd.gif

[fj45lvr]

I totally agree with the assessment that beyond the idea of taking seriously the tenth ammendment that Paul needs to specify how exactly he could achieve "pulling the plug" on the unconstitutional web that has been woven....

It is not too much to ask how exactly that would work out....and doing so would help pave the way for people to have something other than sensationalism to look towards but a "road map" if you will.

[MGreen]

Especially Susan's from Florida. Mike from New York cleared it up pretty nicely.
Thank you. :)

I was thinking of posting about this CNN blog entry earlier, as it could be a sign that the media is finally starting to accept Paul's legitimacy. This has to be the first time the CNN blog has mentioned Paul outside of any debate controversy or supporter sightings at straw polls. More than that, it's actually discussing Paul's ideas, not just his supposed kookiness and hopelessness.

[BW4Paul]

Thank you. :)

I was thinking of posting about this CNN blog entry earlier, as it could be a sign that the media is finally starting to accept Paul's legitimacy. This has to be the first time the CNN blog has mentioned Paul outside of any debate controversy or supporter sightings at straw polls. More than that, it's actually discussing Paul's ideas, not just his supposed kookiness and hopelessness.

My worry, though, is that they've framed the idea to make him appear kooky. That is, the headline talks about him pulling out of the UN, but the article really doesn't provide any justification for doing that-- rather it only talks about WTO and then suddenly jumps to the UN. The reader is left thinking that Paul is trying to fix a problem that is isolated to trade with the sledgehammer of isolationism.

The heading *should* have been something about Paul wanting to pull out of WTO. Alternatively, a heading talking about pulling out of the UN and then using Paul's whole UN focused arguments (which I'm sure he also gave-- I heard his speeches before) to talk about UN withdrawal.

[jonahtrainer]

Some of the comments posted under the article show just how far we still have to go...

This YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGFw6pRFJRg)has the best CNN Comments.

[they walked in line]

His position needs to be better presented, leaving the UN does not mean leaving international dialog.

Yes.
I can't help but wonder if some people will hear about Ron Paul criticizing the United Nations and equate it with, say, John Bolton criticizing the United Nations.

[erowe1]

Bygone, the Republican party platform called for the elimination of the Department of Energy and the Department of Education for many years. Ronald Reagan ran for President twice on that very platform, and then couldn't keep the campaign promise.

It's not really that far "out there" in the history of Republican party ideology. It's only 8 years of Bush growing every department as fast as he could that has made it look "out there".

Actually, I think those items were still in the official party platform in 1992. I think there was some controversy that year because George H W Bush said he wouldn't abide by those parts. But you're right, we need to remember that there are a lot of republicans of an older generation than most of Paul's supporters who would take him seriously if they realized how close he is to what the GOP was then, and how he is the only candidate who is.

[V-rod]

Ron Paul has similar principles to Ronald Regan. "Oh My god thats KOOKY! " says a long time Republican. Putting Regan up on a pedestal but not supporting his views.
Kind of like how a good number of Evangelicals pray to Jesus but ignore many of his teachings and advice.

[bygone]

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c28/chantalemo/2af480fe50128bd2ec33bde5de69cacd.gif

[Brian4Liberty]

Actually, I think those items were still in the official party platform in 1992. I think there was some controversy that year because George H W Bush said he wouldn't abide by those parts. But you're right, we need to remember that there are a lot of republicans of an older generation than most of Paul's supporters who would take him seriously if they realized how close he is to what the GOP was then, and how he is the only candidate who is.

Older generation?!! ;)

Well, the sad part was that the majority of Reagan voters and Republicans of that time are no different now than they were back in the day. They didn't vote for Reagan because of his libertarian ideals. They wanted him to confront the Soviet Union just like they want Bush to go after Iraq, Iran and "radical Islam". Sorry to say that there were a lot of "pro-war" people then, and they haven't changed today. And yes, the same neo-conservatives were in the background pushing for those confrontations back then, just as they are now.

The only "libertarian" ideals that were actually adopted by the Oligarchy were "free-markets" twisted into exporting all manufacturing out of the US, and "open borders" twisted into massive illegal and legal immigration into the US to increase the supply of cheap labor...

You might get some "older" Republicans to support Ron Paul by highlighting the similarities with Reagan, but if they are life-long "war supporters", you have an uphill battle.