Proponents of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP) and “North American Integration”, such as Robert Pastor, the former co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), routinely dismiss those of us who fear that the “North American Union” (NAU) and the NAFTA Superhighway would lead to the end of America as a free and independent Constitutional republic. Pastor, who is one of the leading personages promoting the NAU, lamented that we who oppose it are standing in the way of progress, "Somehow, if you're fearful that America's independence will disappear, you won't even take small steps forward. You just get mired in the status quo. The problem is that the world is moving very rapidly, and you can't stay competitive if you don't move.”

But even a casual glance at Pastor’s model for a “North American Community" − the European Union (EU) − as well as his own words, proves we have much cause for concern when it comes to the NAU and our independence.

In Europe, borders have been all but erased. One can travel from nation to nation without any customs checks. Goods are certified through a unified European entity. The lira, franc, and mark have been replaced by the “Euro.” A European Parliament has been created and is gaining more power each and every year. There is even an EU “Pledge of Allegiance” to which member governments will soon require new immigrants to swear before being awarded residence.

Despite denials by Pastor and others, all of this and more is on the table for the coming “North American Union” including a single NAU currency called the “Amero.”

More and more economic “experts” are claiming that the U.S. dollar’s decline makes a single North American currency more urgent. More alarming are statements such as this one from SPP cofounder, former Mexico President Vicente Fox, in response to a question from a call to CNN’s Larry King Live in October of 2007:

Caller: “Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?”
Mr. Fox: “Long term, very long term. What we proposed together, President Bush and myself, it’s ALCA, which is a trade union for all the Americas.”
Caller: “It’s going to be like the Euro dollar, you mean?”
Mr. Fox: “Well, that would be long, long term.”

One should suspect the “long term” he’s talking about will be a lot shorter than you and I can imagine. And Fox’s words are typical of the pro-NAU crowd in all three countries. They deny that they plan to erase our borders and create a single entity. Yet each step they take is indeed modeled after the incremental creation of the European Union (EU). But they mask their true intentions with euphemistic words.

Mr. Pastor, for example, denies his intentions concerning a “North American Union.” But in writing speech after speech he goes on to assert that which he denies, except that he calls his dream utopia a “North American Community” or “Commission” rather than a “Union.”

But for such a “Community” to become a reality, our trade laws, our tariffs, our national security operations, our customs, our immigration laws, our foreign policy, our environmental regulations, our judicial system, and much more will all have to be altered to fit the “sensitivities” of Mexico, Canada, and the international community.

That’s why the Council on Foreign Relations’ own manual for the NAU called “Building a North American Community” recommends:

• an NAU bank;
• an NAU “border pass”;
• a unified NAU law enforcement entity;
• an NAU energy policy;
• unified NAU environmental laws;
• a common NAU tariff; and
• an NAU Social Security system.

More could be said. The facts are clear that any “integration” of Canada, Mexico, and the United States would mean the end of our status as an independent Constitutional republic.

Our Congress would be overshadowed by an NAU parliament.

Our Constitution would be superseded by a maze of NAU trade and regulatory agreements.

Our state laws would be made subject to NAU policies and requirements

And on and on − and on.

If we allow the “North American Community” to evolve, even as described by its apologists, the United States as an independent Constitutional republic would end.