You beat me by just moments in posting this video...

Google allowed CNN to select the questions asked, and to even have them re-phrased.
they really could have tried a little harder at making the questions seem more random, it's obvious there's a corporate political agenda at work here...
but dr.paul gives the best possible answer! totally turns it around. watch how the Skesis squirm!

Johnald_Chaffinch: Nice Dark Crystal reference.

I take it his answer is yes, I believe in this conspiracy.

yeah. it's only 2 minutes long, why not watch it.
with this answer Dr.Paul's brought the project for a North American Union to the public's attention. it's a 'real' conspiracy-of-ideas (a plan!) between some very powerful individuals.

I know I watched it. He just didn't come out and say, yes I believe in this conspiracy. By the way, I hadn't seen much of the debates lately, did any other candidate get asked if they believe in a conspiracy besides Ron Paul?

It's not just "powerful individuals" who favor "globalism".

NAFTA is good. A highway from Mexico to Canada sounds great to me. Super-duper highspeed gas-free bullet train would be even better! Why are Mexicans dying in the desert to get to America? Because some people insist on halting capitalistic opportunity at the southern border to the exclusion of the other, whose mere existence allegedly "threatens our sovereignty".

Wealth is created when capitalism is permitted to function, and it is destroyed when barriers are erected to impede it. The ambiguous term "globalism" seems to me a xenophobic term of attack on equal-opportunity capitalism.

Would Paul maintain price controls on milk that subsidize US farmers, in the name of US sovereignty? Because there are plenty of people south of the border interested in producing milk at lower cost, at actual honest market value and without government intervention, whose utter exclusion exemplifies the real cause of the "border problem".

We pay more to US dairy farmers for their products than the products are worth. Then we pay to police the border. If Mexico was permitted to participate in the market in the first place, we'd pay neither, and we'd actually be addressing, finally, the real "border problem": the problem of anti-capitalism, the problem of exclusion and control.

I am a long-winded f'er. But wow, Paul suggested a NAFTA train would make immigration from Mexico worse, and I see the opposite. It would mean more jobs in Mexico, more participation and thus more wealth in the world, while addressing the true immigration problem, which is economic closedness rather than physical openness.

And ice cream would be cheaper. Mmmm...

I don't think Ron Paul is saying he is against relations with Mexico/Canada, he is just saying he does not believe in a union because he feels America needs to keep it's complete sovereignty. A union, something like the European Union, might end up having control of some of the policies of each individual country, without their complete sovereignty.

vermeulen's right. ron paul's totally for greater trading with other countries, he just understands that a New World Order (/The Project For A New American Century) is not a good direction for us to go in.
I've tried telling people about the possibility of an Amero (like our Euro) and a North American Union, they won't believe me, probably because it sounds way too Orwellian from this perspective. But when it's finally squidgied into the public consciousness - the majority won't even think anything of it...