[What's New (February 15, 2007)] [Our Chairman's blog] [POST A FLYER?] [Featured Older Items] [Stands on Many Basic Issues] [Indexes] [Introduction] [Letters] [Fight Hunger] [Contact Info] [Membership] [United States International] [Links] [[End]

Take our poll: How large should the United States ultimately be?

Expansionist Party
of the United States

(XP)

Charter Member, United States International

WORKING FOR A BIGGER AND BETTER U.S. SINCE 1977

XP is a general-purpose political organization of the Radical Center dedicated to geographic enlargement of the United States, ultimately to culminate in world union under the Constitution

295 Smith Street, Newark, New Jersey 07106-2517, UNITED STATES
Phone: (973) 416-6151
E-mail: XPUS@aol.com

  "One World, Indivisible, with
  Liberty and Justice for All"

If you have suggestions for issues or geographic areas we should cover, let us know. We will entertain contributions from people who share our values. Direct suggestions, presentations to XPUS@aol.com.

Expansionism is the force that made a fledgling country east of the Mississippi, south of Canada, and north of the Floridas into the greatest power in the history of the world.

Without Expansionism, the United States would be just one of many mid-sized countries, incapable of absorbing tens of millions of immigrants, incapable of defending itself against great powers, incapable of projecting its culture and civilization worldwide. How would World War I have turned out without an enormous and powerful U.S.? If World War II had arisen, could the democracies have defeated the Axis of Nazism, Fascism, and Japanese militarism? Or would Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo have won World War II? What would the world be like today? If the Soviet Union had managed to rally an alliance powerful enough to defeat the Axis, could Communism have been stopped in taking over the world?

It is impossible to imagine the world today if the U.S. had stayed east of the Mississippi and north of the Floridas. What will the world be like in 100 years if we stop expanding now?

Well, what is the world like today, and is it getting better or worse? If you believe, as we do, that the bulk of this planet is a nightmare world and getting worse, do you see any hope in any entity or organization other than the United States?

Is the UN going to end starvation and vast, dehumanizing poverty; end local and regional war and ethnic cleansing; produce trillions of dollars of development funds and field hundreds of thousands of aid workers to lift the Third World out of its appalling backwardness? Will Japan or the nations of the European Union transform this planet for the benefit of the poor? Or have those countries always viewed the world as something to be conquered and exploited, not helped?

What new Axis or Communist World Revolution lies in store for our descendants to face, and possibly fall to? This is a horrible, dangerous planet, whose gross and worsening overpopulation is producing ecological devastation, mass extinctions of animal and plant species, rainforest destruction, desertification, and other horrendous conditions despite feeble leadership to control these problems from the U.S. at its present size.

* * *

These are the questions XP asked BEFORE September 11th, 2001. We tried to impress upon Americans the idea that WE ARE NOT SECURE in "splendid isolation". But nobody wanted to hear it. "Of course we're safe" was the view of most people. "Who could possibly attack us? We have NUCLEAR WEAPONS! The whole world is scared to death of us!"

No, actually, only GOVERNMENTS are scared to death of us. Nongovernmental "terrorist" organizations have no fear of us at all.

We call them "terrorists" because they don't wear uniforms and don't march in step on parade grounds. They are nonetheless SOLDIERS in causes we SHOULD recognize but DON'T. They don't see themselves as "cowards" or "criminals", but as SOLDIERS fighting against the evil of a great power gone hideously wrong. If they know the legend of David and Goliath (by far most do), they see themselves as David and the United States (and its colonial overlord, Israel) as Goliath. What an irony, huh? Arabs see themselves as David and the U.S. and Israel as Goliath! That is the way "Arab terrorists" see themselves, as the virtuous Little Guy fighting against seemingly insuperable odds FOR THE RIGHT, AGAINST EVIL.

Anti-Zionist, Arab "terrorists" are only the latest in a long line of people who have blamed the United States for their own problems. In the case of the Arab Nation, there is very considerable justice to the claim that the United States is specially victimizing them — for reasons that ordinary Americans do not comprehend. Americans do not understand the political significance of the recent recasting of Christianity as scarcely-reformed Judaism, which imposes upon Christians the obligation to identify as Jewish, thus "Israelite", and thus, again, as "Israeli".

But Arabs are not the only aggrieved people eager to kill Americans.

Latin America is a region of incessant violence and endemic unfairness.  It is CORRUPT, inefficient, backward, and filled with resentment. It hates the United States for being a success when it is a miserable failure, and pretends that somehow the success of the United States is built upon the bones of Latin American failure. If anyone were to try to figure out how that could be, s/he would be stumped, because the United States has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FAILURES OF LATIN AMERICA. We didn't make Latin America hopelessly elitist, classist, racist, backward-looking, and CORRUPT. We didn't DIVIDE Latin America into two dozen separate countries that should have formed a single federal union. We didn't tell Latin America it should spend over 180 years resenting the United States rather than working with the United States to create a Hemisphere-wide federation, a Great American Union.

And what of Africa? Did the United States colonize Africa? No. Latin Americans unwilling to assume responsibility for Latin America's multitudinous failures pretend that U.S. "colonialism" robbed Latins of initiative and success in life. But who can blame the U.S. for Africa's multitudinous failures?

What of Asia? Before the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States involved itself deeply in only three small parts of that largest of continents: the Philippines, Korea, and Indochina. The hopelessness, corruption, dictatorship, and starvation of all the rest of that enormous continent, home to more than half of all human beings, has nothing to do with us.

In the Philippines, the U.S. agonized, in 1898, over whether to create a colonial regime; decided the Philippines was nothing LIKE ready for independence; then fought a horrible war to make the Philippines "American", and followed up that war with four decades of enlightened mentorship to Filipinos eager to learn how to run a democratic country. Filipinos and Americans fought side by side in World War II, and suffered death at the hands of sadistic Japanese side by side. After the war, the U.S. gave the Philippines independence even tho the Japanese occupation, with its appalling damage to infrastructure and monstrous predation upon human beings, combined with other factors to make it almost impossible for the Philippines to make a success of independence.

Still, after a period of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos, the Philippines was able to reclaim its U.S.-style democracy, and is now working with the U.S. to eradicate Islamist terrorism in Mindanao and adjoining islands. Widespread use of English and an orientation toward modernism are positive legacies of the U.S. presence, and there are many Filipinos who look with fondness upon our past association and wish to reforge the bonds between us.

In Korea, the U.S. rallied a United Nations "police action" to repel a Communist invasion of South Korea from the North. After heavy loss of life, the border was adjusted at much the same point as before the war, and an ongoing U.S. military presence some 40,000 strong beyond a Demilitarized Zone lined with minefields has kept South Korea free from major invasion, though periodic sallies of murderous invaders from the North via tunnels and boats have killed many South Koreans. The lunatic dictatorship of the North has also attacked South Korean interests abroad, killing dozens of politicians, diplomats, and public servants from Seoul. But the stability that a 50-year commitment to South Korea has brought, enabled that troubled country to emerge from its own authoritarian governments into democracy, bolstered by a strong economy intimately tied to the U.S. market.

North Korea, meanwhile, has been heavily militarized rather than industrialized or democratized. The fanatically proud and isolationistic regime allowed a horrific famine to ravage the population without international intervention. A BBC News report on August 30, 1999 said that since 1995 a minimum of 220,000 (North Korean figure) people had starved TO DEATH in North Korea. The South Korean government estimated 270,000. A U.S. Congressional figure is 2 MILLION. A Buddhist charity in China estimated 3.5 MILLION people died from famine and related illnesses from 1995 to 1999!

Plainly the United States' ongoing defense of South Korea has been hugely in the interest of Koreans.

As regards Indochina, it is very popular among Communist-influenced, credulous individuals to believe that the United States acted in an imperialist and murderous way, to kill Asians for — for — for WHAT? None of the critics of U.S. policy in Southeast Asia has EVER been able to supply a REASON for Americans to kill Indochinese, especially since the history of the region is replete with acts of everyday kindness and sudden heroism by Americans who tried to protect Southeast Asians. No, the accusations of war crimes and racist atrocities are propaganda by people who learned well Hitler's "Big Lie" technique: "The great masses of the people . . . will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."

Now, the old men of Vietnam's Communist 'revolution' are mellowing, or dying. Unified Vietnam is altering its hardline Communist economics and governance, in very-late and still-unspoken acknowledgment that they were misconceived from the beginning. Nationalism was the force that kept the Vietnamese going for all those decades of war, but now that the nation has been united, the faux-revolution that gave rise to the violence is eroding away. Post-Communist but proudly nationalist Vietnam will in time, after all the old murderers are dead, put its deadly past behind it and take its place among the nations of the world — helped in part by the opening to the West that is the only remaining legacy of a short American occupation of South Vietnam: millions of people who can speak and read English.

For the rest of Asia, except for Palestine in recent decades, the U.S. role has been trivial. Other Western powers have had much more power over events, and in much of Asia no Western power has had any significant control since 1950 — over half a century ago. Even in the Middle East, Britain and France were, in crucial, formative times, in charge of territories we had no control over. They held legal "mandates" over Iraq and Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, and are largely responsible for the mess in that region. It is forgotten now, tho certainly should not be, that the United States in 1956 forced Britain, France, and Israel to break off the attack upon Egypt that produced a years-long shutdown of the Suez Canal.

The mere fact that the U.S. had nothing to do with much of the world's problems does not, alas, keep us from being blamed for everything that has gone wrong in the Middle East, in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America, etc.

* * *

What we need to recognize today is that it's not just governments that can make war, but individuals and small organizations of disciplined and furious activists willing to die for their convictions.

In such a world, the United States must endeavor always to be on the side of right, and always to explain why it believes that the side it takes IS THE RIGHT SIDE. We must, also, be willing to consider the possibility that WE'RE WRONG, and the OTHER side is RIGHT.

What we cannot do, however, is stand aside and let whatever is going to happen, happen without our input. "Human" beings have been slaughtering human beings for millennia before the United States was founded, and will continue to slaughter human beings without mercy unless we restrain them. We can afford no naivete.

* * *

We of the Expansionist Party believe that if the United States doesn't grow, the problems around us will grow ever larger and ever worse, eventually to overwhelm us all and plunge the world into a New Dark Age, a dark age in which a dozen or more countries have nuclear weapons.

Expansionism seeks to enlarge not just the United States but also human possibility — for everyone, everywhere. We want the protections of the U.S. Constitution to extend to everyone, everywhere. We want the dynamics of our economy and culture to vitalize and develop the world, all the while heeding the rights of other species in environmentally sensible projects. Expansionism is not just for us, in the present states, but for everyone, everywhere. Expansionism is in everyone's interest.

Animated map courtesy of XP member Bill Lansing, Lewiston, New York

To see more about our basic approach, click here. To see presentations on specific geographic and subject-matter areas, consult our indexes.  To see a presentation on a wide range of stances not specific to any geographic area, click here.

Take our poll! Tell us, below, how big you think the United States should ultimately be — that is, 100 years from now, 200 years, 500 years, whatever. XP takes the long view. Do you?  There's a place at the end of the poll to post brief comments. Longer comments should be made by email. If you'd like to share your thoughts with other visitors to this site, tell us that you'd like your email to be considered for our "Letters" page.

[Return to top.]

What's New

February 15, 2007: "Australian-U.S. Union, a Personal View" by Bill Dekmetzian of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, is our first presentation on the question of bringing Australia (and New Zealand) into the Union.

January 28, 2007:  A new world-spanning animated map of past and future expansion of the United States has been added to this page, above. Textual additions have been made to the Discussion page for accession of Britain as up to six states of the Union, and to the Letters Department.

Earlier Updates

October 17, 2005: Presentation by the Formosan Statehood Movement (FSM) on the XP website. FSM, founded by David Chou, was the subject of a 1994 article by The New York Times about bringing Taiwan into the Union as a state. FSM is allied with XP, and at least until they get their own website up and running, we are hosting their presentation, in three parts, on our site: An Ardent Appeal, The History of Taiwan in a Nutshell, and Our Plan and Founder.

October 17, 2005: Philippine Statehood Group's Website Moves.  "Third Option Proponents" have moved their website to http://www.top-party.tk/. This move occurred some time ago but I only recently became aware that the old one, previously indexed here, was no longer operating. Use the new URL.

April 15, 2004: New "blog":  XP's Chairman, L. Craig Schoonmaker, has created a weblog, called "The Expansionist/The Anti-Post", in which he addresses issues of the day, especially as raised by opinion pieces in the arch-conservative New York Post, with which he is almost always in sharp disagreement. A "blog", for those who aren't clear about the term, is a type of online journal, arranged by date, in which thoughts that occur in a given day are expressed. Some blogs are personal, some political. This one is political. In case the hyperlink above does not work, the URL is http://antipost.blogspot.com.

February 8, 2004: In the year 2000, XP Chairman Schoonmaker created a website to present his issues for people interested in a write-in campaign. Altho that site did receive minor attention from some presidential-election websites, it did not make the kind of impact we believe our issues warrant. Tho we wish we had the wherewithal to run our own candidate, we don't, and a write-in campaign seems pointless (tho we certainly wouldn't mind anyone writing in the Chairman's name if they can't bring themselves to vote for anyone else; we'd rather have people for for someone than to abstain).

We cannot enthusiastically endorse any of the announced candidates. Of the three presumptive familiar names that are to appear on the ballot in November, Ralph Nader seems the least of evils, but we very seriously doubt he can do more than take votes away from one major candidate or the other, not win the contest himself. Of the two major-party candidates, John Kerry is the lesser of two evils. We wish Americans weren't endlessly presented only a choice between the lesser of evils, but as long as that is the case, we must grudgingly suggest that voting for John Kerry is probably more effective a protest against the destructive domestic and foreign policies of George W. Bush. It is imperative that Bush be defeated. He is making the United States a pariah among nations; has done nothing about bringing even Puerto Rico into the Union (something his father made vague noises about but never did anything to accomplish either); so is an actual obstacle to national enlargement, since much of the rest of the world despises him and has no desire to become part of a country he might still govern after November.

As for what we wish any candidate who wins the Presidency would do, we refer you to what Chairman Schoonmaker was thinking before he decided that it is pointless even to try to run for President once the Democratic nomination was sewn up by Kerry:  http://members.aol.com/Schoonmaker2000/Schoonmaker2004.

October 24, 2002:  TWO Taiwan Groups Found!

(1) Taiwan statehood group found us (link is to a Chinese-language site). The Union Society of Taiwan recently contacted the Expansionist Party after a break of some eight years. Snailmail may have gone awry, inasmuch as we thought we had sent a reply to an inquiry received in 1994 from a 'Taiwan Statehood Club', but the organizer of that group never received a reply. He has, since we reconnected, however, said that the government of Taiwan has been most unfriendly to the idea of Taiwan becoming a State of the Union (as is the government of "mainland" (Communist) China, so the letter might have been intercepted by Taiwan's only-marginally-democratic government. The New York Times some years ago ran a human-interest article about the founder of the Taiwan group, saying that "he's serious" about something the Times seemed to think ridiculous. A few weeks ago it occurred to me to try to find that Taiwan group by searching thru Google.com, but I had remembered the organizer's name wrong, as "David Chang" (rather than David Chou), so did not succeed. I found a link to one article that ran in my local paper, the Newark Star-Ledger, but when I tried that link, it didn't work. I sent email to the Star-Ledger and a helpful person there tried to find the article, with no success. So I wrote back to say, 'Thanks anyway. They'll find us.' A week or so later, they did! XP has invited UST to join United States International; USI's voting members approved the application; and we are now awaiting the text of UST's presentation for the USI site. Alas, the bulk of the Taiwan group's materials are in Chinese, and a recent revision to their website has apparently redirected all attempts to reach their English-language pages thru a Chinese-only home page!

(2) David's group referred us to the USA-Taiwan Commonwealth Foundation, a nonprofit educational foundation that advocates not statehood (at least not for the present), but U.S. Commonwealth status for Taiwan. Commonwealth is a form of association pioneered by Puerto Rico in which a territory maintains substantial autonomy but is inside the U.S. tariff wall, uses U.S. currency, has its foreign affairs and defense handled by the U.S. Government, and in other ways is integrated into the United States without full rights of statehood. After 50 years of Commonwealth, the Foundation proposes, the people of Taiwan would vote their preference as to three options:  independence, statehood, or merger into Mainland China.

October 24, 2002: Another Filipino statehood site found. Marcus Mayer of Ontario USA recently ran across a Philippine-statehood website entitled, "Do You Want U.S. Statehood For the Philippines?" We have not yet had a chance to read the entire site and in fact have yet another Philippine statehood site to check out. United States International admitted a Philippine statehood site, whose Manifesto XP has placed on our own site, but that group has gone thru serious internal-cohesion issues and is apparently not presently functioning. Tho we hope that USA Statehood will recover, there is plenty of room for multiple statehood groups in the Philippines, a country of over 82 million people

2/13/02: Alberta statehood sites found.

(1) We have been contacted by:

"the Alberta Residents League. We are a group of Albertans dedicated to separating Alberta from Canada and becoming a U.S. State. We are hoping that [XP] could provide us with a link to help increase our exposure in the U.S.A. Check out our website at www.albertaresidentsleague.com and please feel free to provide us with any insights you may have. It is my hope that we can work together to achieve our common goals. Thanks.

"Ryan Cassell, President, Alberta Residents League"

Charles Kropke, member of the Chairman's Advisory Council, evaluates ARL's program thus:

"Whereas, [ARL] may be looking too much for a lottery-like payoff, the idea that the U.S. Government will have to make some sort of payment is very realistic. I believe the equation would go something like this: In order for the U.S. government to receive the title to [Canadian] Federal lands in Alberta (National Parks, military bases, crown lands, etc.) we would have to take the national debt of Canada, divide it by the total population of the country, and then pay the per capita amount for the entire population of Alberta to the Canadian government. Aside from this, we could offer a tax incentive to Alberta or a mineral-based revenue sharing agreement like the one that Alaska was granted upon entering the union."

ARL's own gathering of opinion and feedback persuaded them that Alberta is not ready for statehood, but that many of its friends are inclined to seek independence from Canada. Inasmuch as we believe that any disruption to Canada would impel at least some provinces to apply for statehood, we look with favor on ARL's work.

(2) The organization Republic of Alberta has, since September 11th, taken a decided turn toward statehood and away from separate nationhood for Alberta. Peter Brimelow, author of THE PATRIOT GAME (a book that discussed Canada's future vis-a-vis the United States) stated in FORBES Magazine (for which he works) that free trade areas empower even small new "countries" to take on sovereignty with low risk, but some Albertans understand that being Albertan Americans would be much better in every way than being sovereign citizens of a tiny, vulnerable country of their own. We tried recently (October 23, 2002) to find out what Republic of Alberta is currently thinking, but its website was not accepting visits for having exceeded its usage quota this month. That's encouraging — but we suggest they need to find another webhost so that everyone who wants to visit, can visit.

 Australian organization expresses interest in closer ties.

"On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:53:25 EST, you wrote to the Society on the subject of Australian accession to the United States as several States of the Union.

"The views of members regarding this interesting proposition have been canvassed, and the Society's Executive Committee has deliberated on the matter in the light of these views. I have been directed to thank you for raising this question, and to inform you of the Society's position, which is this:

"Australia and the USA are recogni[z]ed as having national cultures and aspirations which are very similar. Further, there are powerful informal bonds between the two countries. However, the large geographical distance from the US would mean Australia's voice in Washington would be weak, and the large physical size of Australia would make trans-Pacific federal administration expensive and difficult. Accordingly, rather than complete union, the Society favors increased bilateral ties between the two countries — possibly with a corresponding reduction in the multilateral covenants to which Australia (and in somewhat fewer cases, the USA) are signatories through the UN.

Secretary, The Public Policy Assessment Society Inc. (PPAS)"

XP's close colleague, Lionel Berry of Oshawa, Ontario (who has relatives in Australia), observes:

"The Australian response is very interesting in that they fear it is impossible to govern from such a distance. Is this not the same fear we have seen before in the US and Canada, as each country expanded its boundaries? Although some raise the specter of separation due to distant governance, most will not support this notion. Australia itself overcame distances and differences between colonies to become a more cohesive and stronger unit. I think in this modern world, distance becomes less and less a valid barrier to good governance. Even without this technology, we might look back to the successes of the British Empire in building distant societies. It is the system of government and laws that makes for successful unions, and good unions create stronger units."

We concur. It's worth remembering that at the time the original Thirteen States formed their Union, it could take three weeks to travel by road from one end of the Nation to the other. Now we have essentially instantaneous communication of massive amounts of data and opinion to ease the task of knitting together distant places.

Moreover, in the U.S. federal structure, the center doesn't really govern very much of the day-to-day activities that people care most about: education, garbage pickup, police and fire protection, road construction and repair, prosecution and incarceration of most types of criminals, etc. And the people who staff and run Federal installations in any of the states are for the most part locals.

We can make these points to the nice people in that Australian political society, and we intend to ask if a member of their society would like to write or co-author a page on this topic for our website. We could, if need be, showcase an exchange of views rather than a unified presentation, such that the Australian points out the difficulties and we suggest solutions. We have photo illustrations for a presentation on Australia, from Lionel on his travels and from a Singaporean who has given us permission to use some photos he posted on the Internet. But we haven't, to date, known what exactly to say to appeal to Australians. Perhaps you have something to suggest.

On October 23, 2002, we followed up with an email solicitation for contributions to this website from member(s) of the Public Policy Assessment Society. Should anyone accept, we will put up a page (or more) on Australia and the United States. If you are Australian and have thoughts to offer, you don't have to be a member of the PPAS to contact us. Speak up!

Without wanting to talk about New Zealand as tho it were a mere adjunct to Australia, we don't want to leave visiting Kiwis with the feeling that XP isn't concerned about New Zealand. We are, and indeed have published on this site a presentation by a New Zealander on how Expansionism works to advance the security of the United States and its friends. We are told that arguments used to advance Trans-Tasman Union (Australia and New Zealand) are the same kinds of arguments that would be debated as regards Australia-U.S. union — or, of course, New Zealand-U.S. union. So let us offer here, now, the same deal to anyone who wishes to advocate accession to the Union for New Zealand: we would be happy to publish on this site argumentation in favor of New Zealand's becoming a State of the United States.

Singapore pursues free trade with the United States. It seems Singapore is, according to Reuters, January 31, 2002, in "its worst recession since independence in 1965 and suffering from investor perceptions of regional risk in turbulent Southeast Asia", so wants a free-trade pact with the U.S. Perhaps Singaporeans are open to other thoughts.

Singapore actually proposes that two islands of Indonesia, Batam and Bintan, on which various electronics manufacturing operations occur at lower cost than in Singapore itself, be included in this free-trade arrangement. Tho that seems to be okay with Indonesia, one must wonder if it will be okay with the U.S. Congress.

In asking permission from the Singaporean mentioned above to use some of his photos of Australia, I mentioned that XP might someday propose that Singapore join the Union. It would be a good fit, given Singapore's relative prosperity and ethnic diversity.

Singapore is roughly 80% ethnic Chinese, with the remainder of the population comprising Indians (mainly Hindu), some holdover Europeans, etc. Singapore was a British colony for many years, and Britain might usefully suggest to Singapore that it is very much in Singapore's interest to join itself to the U.S. more fully. Singapore is a non-Moslem enclave of 4.3 million people surrounded north and south by 250 million Moslems. That might be uncomfortable.

Mind you, Singapore hasn't approached the U.S. alone. Reuters reports that

"Singapore, a free trade zealot, has signed bilateral pacts with Japan, New Zealand and the four-nation European Free Trade Association.

"Talks with Canada began this month and are continuing with Australia and the United States after being slowed by the presidential change in the White House and the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

Tho it is easy to understand that a city-state as tiny as Singapore should want to maximize its possibilities to improve its security, outsiders must ask why others should grant Singapore special treatment if Singapore is a free-trade slut. Granting tariff-free access to one's market is a special relationship, but if Singapore is "special" to everyone, why should anyone at all treat it specially?

1/2/02: Nova Scotia Statehood site found. Marcus Mayer of Ontario USA recently found this small website that advocates that Nova Scotia leave Canada for the United States, whether any other province does so or not. It seems not to be actively monitored by its creators. Certainly neither XP nor USI has been contacted after various of our officers left messages at that site. Still, its argumentation stands, and we hope that whoever created the site will follow up such expressions of interest as have been posted to its message board.

---

(If you'd like to be notified when something new is added to the Expansionist Party site, rather than have to check periodically yourself, please e-mail us and we will alert you to additions.)

Featured Older Items

Permit us to commend your attention to the following items of special interest. And don't forget to check our Subject Indexes for other areas and topics you might be interested in.

NO to War Against Iraq! A c. 31,000-word essay setting forth our reasons for opposing the then-impending invasion of Iraq and our ongoing opposition to the occupation of that devastated country.

10/9/01: A Modest Proposal for Redrawing the Map of Canada as Seven States and One Territory of the United States. This page sets forth the thinking of Lionel Berry, a Canadian colleague from Oshawa, Ontario, on the boundaries that new states to be created from Canada should have. It is Mr. Berry's view that lines of economic and cultural force mandate different boundaries into the future from the lines drawn in creating Canada's provinces many years in the past. The one area he suggests remain a territory rather than become a state to itself or part of a larger state is Nunavut, the territory created by Canada to give Eskimos / Inuit self-government. XP responds to this part of Mr. Berry's program and discusses the terms "Eskimo" and "Inuit" in a related webpage. Further discussion of this proposal, with alternative maps, has been added in a separate page as well.

9/16/01: Securing the United States' Future: View from New Zealand. This is a summary of the Expansionist Party's program for English-speaking (re)union as seen by a New Zealander. We feel he has understood well the way the various 'pieces of the puzzle' fit together to make a greater whole than the mere sum of its parts. If in looking at the range of areas on which XP has so far produced webpages, you haven't seen a comprehensible pattern, Gene O'Sullivan reveals the pattern in this presentation, stitching the patchwork into a quilt.

Our program is even grander than Mr. O'Sullivan sets forth, involving, eventually, the whole world and including alternatives for Russia to inclusion in an ambitious (and potentially dangerous) European Union, plus a closer relationship with the Indian Subcontinent and other areas. But as far as it goes, Mr. O'Sullivan's piece brilliantly encapsulates the rationale behind the United States' defending the future by prudent geographic enlargement now.

9/16/01: One Plan for the Boundaries of Six British States: A British suggestion. George J. Carty of Durham, England, has created a map to show one possible way to create six new States of the United States from the present United Kingdom (less Northern Ireland, which XP proposes be reunited with Ireland as a seventh state to be created from the British Isles). He proposes that most of the states take historical names. That means for England, which he proposes be divided into four states, that the three ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms provide the names for three of the new States.

At that site, the map appears, with notes and some queries for readers, at a size large enuf to enable people to read the names and boundaries of counties, which Mr. Carty's map also shows in his preferred alignment. Naturally it is not in either Mr. Carty's power nor ours to set such boundaries, but this proposal does provide talking points.

Associated with this page is a second page, for comments.

8/15/01: Acción Privada para Unión de México y los Estados Unidos (Spanish-language version of our presentation "Private Action for Mexican-U.S. Union"). Esta presentación es una traducción primitiva de una presentación originalmente escrita en inglés (como abajo), creada primariamente por medio del programa traductora Babelfish del servicio Internet Alta Vista. Nosotros hemos ensayar mejorar el texto literal que este programa ha creado, pero no somos personas de habla española. Perdone este texto tan desmañado. Si un indivíduo bilingüe puede ayudarnos en crear una traducción educada, por favor contáctanos. La version en inglés es la definitiva.

4/29/01: The Indian Subcontinent and the United States: A Partnership In Waiting. This presentation, about 12,000 words in length and profusely illustrated with the sights of South Asia, addresses problems that Subcontinent nations cannot solve alone, and suggests that the United States can provide the help, of many types, that will enable the region to emerge from its long travail into the modern era. Such help would not be one-sided charity but could powerfully advance U.S. interests in, among other things, preventing a catastrophic war with Communist China.

2/20/01: USI: United States International: XP has connected with a number of other statehood-minded websites and individuals to create a new alliance to promote the idea of statehood for various areas, worldwide. We all hope to make people in and out of government, inside and outside the United States, realize that many wise people believe that the common good would be well advanced by having more of the world joined under the Constitution of the United States. Different groups have different views, each retains full freedom of action, and none imposes upon other members of the alliance an obligation to back them in everything they say. But we hope to make plain by the number of different sites from different areas of the globe that comprise USI, that statehood for any given area is not absurd, because there are a lot of places whose people may very well believe that joining their region to the United States would be a great advance for humankind. USI hopes not just to become "Statehood Central" — the one place media, politicians, and their staff look to for information on statehood movements worldwide — but also to inspire people all over the world to form new statehood organizations in their own region.

2/27/01: "Waking from a Nightmare World". We have slightly revised and moved to our main site our former supplemental homepage on CompuServe, which focuses on the horrendous conditions that make life for far too many people on this planet a grinding misery that ends only with early death. Our other presentations try to take a positive approach, but you can't fully understand the urgency with which we pursue our program unless you also understand the horror — and anger — with which we view the current condition of the world. We have, alas, much to add to this bare outline of the world's miseries, but the subject is so depressing that we may put off completing it while we address more hopeful topics in proposals that, if acted upon, will alleviate the miseries we deplore. The world can wake from its present nightmare, but not without radical reorganization.

12/21/00: A visitor to our site told us of a Canadian website that advocates merger of Canada into the United States. We have read thru that page and its links, and are very favorably impressed, so urge all our visitors interested in Canada to check out that site, "United North America: Amalgamation of Canada and the United States of America". UNA has many links that might be especially useful for non-Canadians who would like to know more about Canada and about the attitudes of pro-U.S. Canadians toward moving to the U.S. as individuals (and perhaps, by extension, into the U.S. politically, as a group). See particularly the "Canada's Brain Drain" and "Relocating from Canada to the Twin Cities" sites and an "Unbiased Comparison" (of Winnipeg and Minneapolis/Saint Paul). (United North America is a Charter Member of United States International.)

Another site of interest (12/26/00) is "American Millennial Order" (AMO), which begins "We are world citizens who believe that nations should join the United States of America politically, economically, and ideologically in order to strengthen the American constitution and promote civil liberties throughout the world in this new millennium."

11/14/00: An Ontario statehood group is forming. A young businessman in Hamilton is forming a group to promote statehood for Ontario by itself, without reference to the rest of Canada. He believes, and a case can plainly be made that he's right, that Ontarians would do much better for themselves as Americans than as Canadians: lower their taxes; reduce the drain on their resources in transfer payments to other provinces; renounce expensive and pointless bilingualism/biculturalism and pursue their own, English-speaking culture; gain real power to affect decisions in Washington that control key aspects of Ontarians' lives; and resolve, at long, long last, the conflicted "identity" they have as "North Americans" who want to be just-plain "Americans" but who were raised to be "Canadians". He wants Ontarians to be able to pursue a positive future, stop fighting the endless battle over "identity", and stop throwing good money after bad in the hopeless effort to keep Canada internally united but separate from the United States. His basic questions for Ontarians seem to be, "What are we fighting against? Inclusion in the power center of the most powerful nation in the history of the world? Why would anyone fight that?" Ontario USA has a handsome and informative website but has not yet coalesced into a working membership organization. If you are in or from Ontario and want to help create an Ontario statehood group, contact marcusmayer@ontariousa.org. (Ontario USA is a Charter Member of United States International.)

12/11/00: MANIFESTO of USA Statehood (based in Metro Manila). The Philippine statehood movement, long inactive, is reviving. (USA Statehood is a Charter Member of United States International.)

[Animated XP logo contributed by Todd G. Sutherland of Mississauga, Ontario]

Expansionist Party internal info

Membership: For people curious about what XP membership entails, we have created (1) a short page of general information about the nature of Party membership, dues, etc., and (2) a membership application in printable form.

Staff:  XP has no paid staff but is a small, international organization that relies wholly upon volunteers. For more information about the Chairman, see his personal homepage at http://members.aol.com/Schoonmakr. We also have a Chairman's Advisory Council of members the Chairman especially relies upon for advice and assistance.

Here is a quick alphabetical list of geographic areas the Expansionist Party has addressed, which are described more fully at our Subject Indexes page:

Afghanistan   Australia   Bhutan   Britain    Canada   Cuba   Guyana   Haiti   India   Iraq   Ireland   Mideast   Mexico   Nepal   New Zealand    Pacific island territories   Pakistan   Panama   The Philippines   Puerto Rico   Quebec   Russia   South Africa   South Asia   Sri Lanka   Third World development   United Kingdom   United States   West Indies  

Check out a printable flyer with tear-off tabs for posting on bulletin boards. This, initial version deals with world union under the Constitution. There is a more limited goal, North American union (U.S. and Canada) advocated at United States International's website. If you'd like to post either flyer in your area, please (a) fold back and forth several times on the line between the tab area and main text so that if someone rips off a tab, a chunk of the message won't come off with it, (b) cut each tab free from the others, and (c) put it up only in legally permissible display areas, such as bulletin boards you are authorized to post to, public kiosks, etc.

(If you discover any nonworking links on this site, please tell us. Thank you.)

Flags courtesy of the FOTW Flags of the World website.

(This is the end of the XP Home page) [Return to top] [What's New] [Our Chairman's blog] [POST A FLYER?] [Featured Older Items] [Stands on Many Basic Issues] [Indexes] [Introduction] [Letters] [Fight Hunger] [Contact Info] [Membership] [United States International] [Links]