[c. 11,000 words] [End]
September 5, 2000

WHERE WE STAND: A brief summary of principles
Expansionist Party of the United States

The United States is a great but troubled civilization on a crowded, violent planet that is perpetually at the edge of starvation and chaos due to grotesque maldistribution of wealth and inexcusable unfairness in the social order. Many Americans feel anger and unease at present conditions, but don't know what to do. The Expansionist Party ("XP") does.

You must understand a problem before you can solve it. Domestically, the most important problem we face, more important than the mountain of debt under which millions are buried, decaying cities, even crime, is the arrogance and immovability of Government. The United States has gone gravely wrong in the two centuries since the Constitution was adopted. We have strayed from what the Founding Fathers intended this country to be, in buying "reforms" that, over the course of decades, have eroded our democracy so badly that most people now feel powerless. They're right. They are powerless. That can change.

Internationally, the greatest problem we all face is overpopulation, which makes solving the other problems more difficult.

Government is unresponsive because it has insulated itself from overthrow at the voting booth (a) by spinning off many governmental powers to "independent regulatory agencies", "authorities", "commissions", and quasi-independent "corporations" whose members are independent of the people — not answerable to the voters in any way; (b) by creating election districts so large that the voters can't really know their elected representatives, thus producing an electoral system where name recognition is half the battle and money is the other half; (c) by taking from elected officials the right to appoint civil servants of their own choosing and fire those from previous administrations, in creating a tenured Civil Service, an unelected "permanent Government"; and (d) by permitting unelected judges to void laws passed by elected officials and even to compel actions by Government that only elected legislatures are authorized to take, like raising taxes.

Politicians have camouflaged the disappearance of much of our power by hiding behind the imitation-democracy of primary elections in which so few people vote that tightly organized but tiny groups control the ballot. Whereas parties used to feel obliged to offer tickets balanced in race and ethnicity, tickets today may be wildly unbalanced, under the pretense that this is what the people want.

To make Government truly responsive to the will of the people, we must undo all the antidemocratic measures slipped past us in the past 50 years and more, to make everyone who wields Government power subject to control by the electorate.

— We must reject the idea of a "permanent Government" altogether, then abolish Civil Service tenure, to permit elected executives to fire any bureaucrat for any reason and appoint someone more responsive to the program he was elected to enact.

— We must require all executives of regulatory agencies, subject-matter authorities, and public corporations to run for office.

—  We must amend the Constitution to provide a means to override the Supreme Court, which has become a judicial dictatorship that high-handedly tells us what to do, against our will, and cannot be overruled. The President can veto an act of Congress; Congress can override a presidential veto; but nobody can overrule the Supreme Court. That must change. 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus the President, or 3/4 of both houses or the people, voting in referendum, without the President, should be able to overrule the Supreme Court (or any lesser court) on any matter whatsoever. That would complete the set of "checks and balances" among our three branches of Government. Similar measures should be adopted by state legislatures to control state courts.

— We must forbid the major parties to endorse the same candidate for any office, and require them to submit candidates for all posts to be filled in a given election if they name a candidate for any, so they can't just "pass" on offices where they would be inclined to endorse a "fusion" candidate or permit someone to run unopposed. The people must have a choice.

— We must abolish primary elections. The major parties are not organs of government but private organizations, and the general public should not be required to pay for their selection of candidates. Let the major parties choose their candidates the way they used to and minor parties still do: by internal processes of their own choosing. Let them give us balanced tickets, and stop hiding their machinations behind the false facade of "democracy". In many primaries fewer than 15% of eligible voters vote, split six and seven ways. What democracy allows 3% of the electorate to control the ballot?

— The solution to low voter participation and public alienation from the political process is not feebly and unconvincingly to urge everyone to vote, nor to pass voting rights legislation, but simply to require everyone to vote, as some European democracies do. If democracy is to work, we must accept voting as an obligation, not just a right. However, people compelled to vote must have a real choice, so we must assure ballot access to everyone who wants to run for any office (abolish the petition requirement, which in many areas is deliberately over-complicated, designed to narrow electoral choice), then provide public financing to people too poor to run otherwise. We have computers nowadays. We could easily have three screenfuls of candidates for each office and search electronically to find the name of the person or party we want to vote for. If we can trust our life savings to automatic teller machines, we can create secure computer systems for voting.

— We must put a binding "None of the Above" choice on every ballot for every office, such that if "None of the Above" gets more votes than any named candidate, every named candidate is defeated and forbidden to run again for that office in that election year. Instead, a second-round election, with all new names, would have to be held — and a third, if "None of the Above" still wins, and a fourth, and a fifth, whatever it takes to get somebody the people really want, and break the back of major-party resistance to opening the process to new people and new parties.

— We must permit, and count, write-in votes in all elections, at all levels of Government. Believe it or not, there are many states that refuse to count write-in votes. Think about that: Government feels no obligation to count every vote! Amazing.

— We must forbid high Government officials, elected or appointive, from lobbying Government after they leave office. There are a quarter BILLION people in the United States. We don't need the same few people in Congress and lobbying Congress for decades at a time. When your term of office is over, GO HOME!

— Millionaires (and billionaires) should be forbidden to hold public office. They are not like the rest of us. They have an entirely different value system and agenda. They haven't experienced our lives, so cannot represent us. Forbid millionaires to hold office and we won't need term limits to change faces in Congress, because over half the Senate would have to resign, and a significant portion of the House too.

— The size of congressional districts should be cut drastically. In 1912, Congress foolishly froze the House of Representatives at 435 members, no matter how populous the Nation might become. That means that each ten years, when the House is reapportioned in accordance with the latest census, Congress becomes more remote from the people. In 1912, districts were apportioned according to the 1910 census, which showed a national population of 92 million. The 1990 census (a serious undercount — for instance, XP Chairman Schoonmaker wasn't counted, despite writing a letter to the Census Bureau to complain that his form hadn't been picked up) counted 249 million, up 270% since 1910. If the House of Representatives had expanded at the same rate, we would now have 1,175 members of Congress.

Put another way, there were 210,000 constituents per district in 1912; there are now 630,000 constituents per Representative, fully three times the number in 1912. Our great-grandparents had three times the influence over Government that we have.

630,000 constituents is far too many for any Congressman to serve adequately. It is also so many that no one constituent who is not rich or famous can have any significant influence on his or her Representative.

Huge districts force candidates to campaign by television and mass media, with their enormous costs, because it just isn't possible to meet a significant portion of one's constituency in personal appearances. We should cut the size of congressional districts, and freeze not the number of total Representatives but the number of constituents per Representative, at an even quarter million. Districts of only 250,000 constituents would mean far better constituent service, much more accountability to the electorate, and vastly less expensive elections. More candidates could conduct their campaigns mainly thru personal appearances, rather than thru mass media. That would mean both that voters would get a chance to see their Representative in person and ask questions they do not now get to ask, and the candidate would learn what voters really care about.

In terms of the work of Congress, more Representatives would mean more heads to consider the wide range of issues Congress must decide, and more time per head for a narrower range of committees and subcommittees, as would allow every member to become really knowledgeable about the legislation submitted to his one committee and one subcommittee. Today even a conscientious Member of the House or Senate can become only passably informed about legislation submitted to the three committees and five subcommittees on which the typical Member now must serve.

— Initiative, referendum, and recall must be permitted at every level of Government. While representative democracy is the best way to run a country the size of the United States, in that people who devote all their working hours to learning about the issues make informed decisions, the people at large must have a way to push Congress. There is no reason we can't allow the people to put issues on the ballot, vote in both advisory and binding referendums, and remove from office officials at any level who become unacceptable mid-term even if they do not commit an impeachable offense.

Most Government business would continue to be done by dedicated officeholders, but now and then the people should be consulted directly. If we have compulsory voting and "Yes", "No", and "Abstain" options on the ballot, the results will be representative of the public will. And

— Congress should "take its show on the road": convene in different parts of the country now and then to break free of "The Beltway", that condition of mental isolation in a self-absorbed land of bureaucrats, lobbyists, mandarins, and media pundits from which Congress suffers grievously. Let Congress work out of large tents set up in bombed-out vacant lots in the South Bronx for three months, and maybe Congress will finally understand the urgency of urban problems. Let it meet in an abandoned factory in Detroit for three months, and maybe it will understand the consequences of laissez-faire trade and industrial policies.

The purpose of Government is to serve society, not change it. There's a lot more right with the Nation than wrong. We should be working to strengthen what's right and help people thru tough times, but do nothing that will fundamentally subvert the inherent strengths of the United States: diversity, unity, public-spiritedness and generosity. Then we should carry our successes here to all those places around the world that wish they worked as well as we do, thru appropriate annexations (granting statehood to new areas), interventions (as to restore democracy to Haiti or overthrow the government that is starving millions in North Korea), and assistance of many kinds.

The Peace Corps should be at least as large as the war corps. We should promote environmentally sound development, "appropriate technology" (low-tech where that's good enough), and democracy all over the world. The Founding Fathers intended that the New World cleanse the Old, but we seem to have forgotten that. The United States has a larger purpose than to balance the budget or put our own people to work. Let's recapture our original, Revolutionary vision and make the world over in our own image. Because aside from a few extremists who complain about "Yankee imperialism", most of the world wants very much to be very much like us.

DEBT

Our most urgent domestic problem is debt. Not the "national debt", the money Government owes, but personal debt, those trillions of dollars the private citizens "owe" to banks, credit-card companies and the like. 1.3 million Americans are expected to declare personal bankruptcy this year, and they are only the tip of the iceberg of debt oppressing the Nation. Perhaps 40 million Americans are so heavily weighed down by debt at extraordinary interest rates that they are desperate. They don't want to declare bankruptcy, because they feel they borrowed the money and undertook the debt knowingly, so it would be dishonorable to disown it, but they don't know how they're going to cope. Millions of these people are wrong: what they "owe" is not a debt of honor but a horrendous crime against them in which our alienated and alien Government actively co-conspires. Government has legalized loan-sharking. Banks and credit-card companies are charging interest rates today that would have gotten their principals sent to prison in the 1950s! The prime rate today was usury in 1955!

We must free ourselves from legal loan-sharking by demanding Government impose caps on interest rates in the range of 10% and, further, that Government restore the deductibility from income taxes of interest paid on consumer debt that we had until the Reaganite tax "reform" of 1986. That Plutocratic Revolution allowed the rich to deduct interest on the kinds of debt they relied upon, while taking away deductibility of the kind of debt the poor and middle-class rely upon: consumer debt (charge cards, credit cards, and revolving lines of bank credit). The rich actually wrote a law that permits them to deduct mortgage interest on two residences per family — and one of those can be a sleepover yacht! But a working stiff who hasn't $2 left the night before payday has to pay 18%, 19.6%, 21.9%, and even 24.9% interest on consumer debt and can't deduct one cent of that interest! What this means, of course, is that if the rich are deducting the interest they pay from the taxes they pay, that shortfall is being made up by the rest of us. In short, we're not only paying our own interest, but we are also paying all the interest the rich pay on their big houses and sleepover yachts! That must change.

We can get out from under the mountain of consumer debt we have acquired in the past several years by restoring the tax deductibility of interest on credit-card and other consumer loans. That would enable people to devote the money they now pay to service consumer debt to reducing debt instead. That in turn would give banks more money to lend for new purchases, business startups, and other useful purposes.

*

Here are some other issues that concern XP.

NATIONAL EXPANSION

The Expansionist Party has a special stress:  decolonization and national expansion.

— The U.S. must decolonize by converting its de facto colonies (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas) into new states or parts of existing states so their people achieve the only kind of citizenship the United States should ever have: first-class, with voting representation in Congress and the right to vote for President.

— Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands should be merged into a single state (which might later add other Caribbean islands). Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas should be merged into a Big Hawaii, which would still be small enough a state that the tiny populations of these insular territories would exercise real power in the state legislature.

—  The U.S. should actively campaign to bring in other new states, to be created from the Philippines (which used to be a U.S. colony), Canada, Mexico, Panama, the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Britain, and every other part of the world willing to abide by the Constitution. The world is a dangerous place, and we can be secure only when we have great economic and military power, plus the legal right to intervene in troublesome areas before they explode.

The United States could never have become a superpower if our forebears had stayed within the original boundaries of 1783: east of the Mississippi, north of the Floridas, and hemmed in by Canada on the north. Rather, our ancestors had the good sense to expand the Union in a series of annexations of territory and conversion of all that territory into new states on the basis of equality with old.

Global population and other problems are spiralling out of control. We must find a way to regain control over international problems and bring peace, prosperity, and democracy to this entire planet. Our best defense is not a strong offense but a far-sighted and generous program of geographic expansion.

The United States has much to teach the world about economics, diversity, and democracy, and must not be so modest as to say that because we have (trivial) problems of our own, we are in no position to lecture others. Sure we are. We are the most racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse Nation on Earth. We have avoided the fate of Bosnia, Lebanon, Rwanda, and the Soviet Union, and created one country out of many different groups; we have become fabulously rich in the process; and we have spread that wealth widely across society. These are astounding accomplishments, of exactly the types that the rest of this planet desperately needs.

There is no one factor that explains the success of the United States.  It's not just the Constitution, because dozens of countries have written constitutions based on ours, yet have failed miserably as societies. It's not just technology in the form of national radio, television, business, and political networks. It's not just a tradition of personal initiative that has created tens of thousands of grassroots organizations and millions of businesses large and small. Nor is it some special mix of races or cultures, of religions and ethnicities. In other countries similarly constituted in one regard or other, groups that get along fine here are in constant, often murderous conflict there. Catholics and Protestants get along fine here but kill each other in Ireland; Arabs and Jews live side by side in peace here but fight to the death in Palestine; Indians and Pakistanis not just read the same newspapers and watch the same specialized television programs, but also work together, patronize each other's businesses, and dine in the same restaurants together here, whereas they are on a constant war footing against each other in South Asia. XP does not pretend to know what makes the U.S. work. We just know it does, and we are certain we can extend the dynamics that make it work to other areas.

Those dynamics expand as we expand. If we expand to Palestine, Arabs and Jews will make peace there because we will make peace between them. If we annex India and Pakistan, their peoples will rediscover how much unites them and put aside what divides them. If we annex the two Irelands, the "troubles" there too will end.  Because the United States is magic.

We may not be able to reproduce that magic in foreign countries, because we don't know which of the hundreds of elements of this society produce which effects. But we can enlarge the Nation infinitely and that magic will spread to fill whatever new borders the United States expands to.  Believe it.

Alas, the world outside our borders is today a terrible and terrifying mess. We cannot be all lovey-dovey and softhearted when we look around, but must take appropriate measures, no matter how harsh, to make the world safe for our values, because those values are human values, and the people of the world want them to percolate thru all societies. Thus we must defeat all enemies and crush all destructive forces, no matter what that may take.

FOREIGN POLICY

— The Pentagon was right when it said, in 1992, that we must prevent the rise of any other superpower. Characteristically, George Bush [the elder] backed down after criticism. XP won't back down. The United States should do whatever may be necessary to prevent the creation of a second superpower that could endanger world peace.

— Thus, the United States should do everything in its power to prevent a real European political union. Divided, Europe conquered nearly all the world. What might it do united?

— The U.S. should be flooding the formerly Communist countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, plus the whole of the Third World, with hundreds of thousands of advisers, teachers, economists, and Peace Corps volunteers in many fields, plus bringing many hundreds of thousands of their brightest young people to high schools and colleges over here to speed their countries' conversion to a humane free-market economy and to help create a democratic mindset in people who have never known democracy.

Instead, U.S. response to events in the former Soviet Bloc has been inexcusably slow, niggardly, and inadequate. If those countries fail to make the changeover but revert to militaristic, anti-U.S. dictatorship, we will have no one to blame but the present U.S. ruling class. The same group is responsible for the turmoil and massive bloodshed in the Third World, because it has done nothing to civilize that region and educate it in multiracial tolerance and fighting things out at the ballot box rather than at the barricades.

— Drug abuse in the United States can be virtually ended by making literal, military war on the farmers in Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Pakistan, and elsewhere who grow the drug crops, and on the laboratory technicians who process those crops into drugs. Napalm the fields and houses of these monsters and strafe those who come rushing out from the flames, and the drug problem will disappear, without the cumbersome uselessness of trying to arrest them abroad, extradite them to the U.S., then try them in our overcrowded and ineffective courts. Declare war on Colombia and other drug-producing countries, and kill every single drug farmer, technician, and pusher who dares target the United States for poisoning. If there are no drug crops, there will be no drugs on the street and consequently no drug problem nor any of the other problems that drug use produces: drug-driven crime, crack babies, AIDS. It is hard to exaggerate the harm the United States suffers from drugs. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from dangerous illegal drugs pushed at naive young people by rapacious monsters. It's time to strike back hard, to execute the killers.

— The United States is on the wrong side in the Middle East. The British Empire's decision in 1917 and into the 1920s to create a Jewish state in a Moslem land was a terrible, terrible mistake which has led to endless war and anti-Moslem atrocities. Mistakes should be corrected, not compounded, and the U.S. must end all support for the violent, racist "State" of Israel — which despite its cleverly-selected name is neither part of the United States nor compatible in any way with the tolerant, Christian values of this country. We should change sides, recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate government of all of Palestine, on the sole condition that it pledge itself to creating a secular state that does not discriminate against anyone on the basis of religion, then assist it in creating a prosperous, peaceful Holy Land for all three of its religious communities. Thus will we finally achieve peace in the Middle East the only way it can be achieved: by ending Zionism.

Pious religious Jews who believe in Judaism's teachings of fairness to everyone and who are content to live in the Holy Land as Jewish Palestinians neither better nor worse than their Moslem and Christian neighbors, should be permitted to remain. All others should be deported. There are at most 4 million of them, a trivial number in a world of 5.9 billion people. Scatter them across the Third World, where they might actually do some good, in providing financial services to underserved peoples and creating an international trading network among countries that don't trade with each other nearly enough.

— The U.S. should do everything in its power to end starvation, poverty, and environmental devastation everywhere on planet Earth. Desperately poor Third World peoples are despoiling their environment and subverting their future to fend off starvation. What they are really doing is ensuring that the next generation will starve.

We must work to limit world population, teach conservation, apply appropriate technology (high tech is not the answer everywhere), and educate the people in agricultural and health techniques that will enable them to master and enjoy their surroundings, not destroy them.

These things can be done by both governmental and nongovernmental organizations, but no private effort alone is remotely enough. The "Save the Children" types of organizations are worse than worthless. Everything they achieve for a given village or country can be wiped out by a single hurricane, earthquake, or civil war. Only structural change in the Third World will weather all storms. And it will take a lot of pressure from a major government to produce such structural change. Private programs to feed children are pernicious in making people feel they are doing their bit, so don't need to push for the structural changes that alone will make a real difference. By inducing millions of people into thinking they are doing what they can, such programs are actually harming the Third World, because no private effort is going to save the 14 million people, mostly children, who die each year from the effects of starvation around the world. Only government pressure, and that generally means U.S. Government pressure, can end misery on that scale, and until we do end such massive misery, we have no right to feel we are doing out bit.

DEFENSE

— The military budget should be cut immediately by $100 billion, the money to be redirected to nonmilitary needs, reducing the national debt, and retraining people discharged from the service or displaced from defense industries. There is no threat on the horizon that can remotely justify spending $300 billion a year on defense, and we proved in the [two] "Gulf War"[s] (actually a slaughter of defenseless Third World people, a first-strike "amBush" of a country that never attacked us and couldn't shoot down even one of our high-altitude bombers) that we can easily raise international armies for collective security. We may be able to reduce our military budget to $50 billion within four years, by recreating the armed forces into hollow forms into which we can pour manpower from National Guard reserves if any crisis should occur.

— U.S. troop levels in Europe and Korea should be reduced drastically, as part of a huge cut in military personnel (unless, of course, the United States should declare war on North Korea to save the millions now dying of Communist-inflicted famine).

The very first people to cut should be all women now working in traditional men's jobs. That will end the problem of sexual harassment in the military.

Note the hypocrisy of public opinion here. Homosexual men are not to be permitted in the military because their presence introduces sexual tensions; so the individual must yield to the institution. But when women cause sexual tensions in the military, it is the institution that must adjust. Let's be consistent, folks. If you don't want sexual tension in the military, keep women out.

The only women the military needs, if any, are nurses, secretaries, and the like. We haven't exhausted the supply of men and we're not in a national emergency. Indeed, there are far more men willing to serve in the armed forces than there will be places for. It is mad to deprive men of a military career to make room for women with serious personality disorders, which is to say all women who want to go into combat. The military must not surrender to lesbian-feminist madness. We must not teach and incite women to kill men, women, and children, nor confuse people about what human nature is and is not. Teaching women to kill causes many men to see women not as defenseless potential victims to be protected but as potentially deadly enemies to be defended against, by lethal force if need be. Even in the best of circumstances, military men are being taught, in desensitization classes, to turn a deaf ear to women's cries for help lest an enemy who captures female soldiers torture them to induce male soldiers to surrender or act foolishly in trying to rescue them. Is it really in women's interest to have millions of men taught to turn a deaf ear and blind eye to women's suffering?

Male troops recalled from Europe and Korea should be assigned to provide security to inner cities, and especially to inner-city schools, so that every kid in every neighborhood can get an education free from fear of being killed on the way to school or walking between classes.

THE DEFICIT

— We must permanently eliminate the Nation's budget deficit and pay off the national debt, not just reduce it. We can do so easily by restoring the income tax rates of 1980, adjusted for inflation, to drastically increase what the rich pay. Indeed, we should add a surcharge of 99% on income over $5 million per year. Nobody needs to make more than $5 million a year. Beyond a certain point, money is nothing more than a way to keep score. Let the rich figure their wealth by how many teachers, policemen, firefighters, nurses, and reforesters their taxes pay for, not by how much they screw the Government out of thru "smart" accountants.

Before the massive tax cuts on the rich that the Reagan Revolution made, nobody talked about how "poor" we were or cried that we "can't" do this and "can't" do that because we "can't afford it". We used to be a fabulously wealthy country and brag about it. Well, we still are a fabulously rich country, but too much of our wealth is now in the private fortunes of the obscenely rich.

Thanks to the Reagan-Bush Plutocratic Revolution (the "reforms" made by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which effectively abolished progressive taxation), we are reconcentrating more and more of the Nation's wealth in fewer and fewer hands. If this keeps up, the U.S. will become the northernmost nation of Latin America: a country where the top 2% owns 98% of the Nation's wealth. If our own obscenely rich don't want Latin-style violent revolution a few years down the road, they had better back off and consent to pay their fair share in taxes that will create a wider and fairer distribution of wealth.

— Medicare and Social Security should be means-tested. No one who makes $100,000 a year needs so much as one cent of either Social Security or Medicare (they can pay for their own medical insurance), and they shouldn't receive it. Social Security was intended to provide "security", not more money for caviar. People who are already secure don't need Social Security. Cut them off.

— The Social Security "trust fund" should be converted into a genuine trust fund that invests in income-producing property and securities. Government funds not used for weeks or months at a time should be earning interest in a broad portfolio of sound investments, especially in up-and-coming industries and job-creating small businesses, but also in every major corporation whose power over the economy should be tempered by public representation on the board of directors.

— Aside from a tobacco tax devoted to health care (see "Domestic Policy", below), all regressive taxes (in which the rich and poor pay the same amount or percentage: in sales, property, beer and liquor taxes) should be abolished, with only such narrow exceptions as could fairly be characterized as user fees, like modest gasoline taxes dedicated to roads and mass transit. Proposals such as Ross Perot's in 1996 to increase gas taxes by 50¢ a gallon are criminally wicked assaults upon the poor, who can scarcely afford to fill the tank now. That proposal, from a BILLIONAIRE, shows that Perot is not the friend but the enemy of the common man.

THE ECONOMY

— To keep the Nation's economy healthy, we must create incentives to invest at home and disincentives to export jobs. Tax credits should be given for approved types of business investment (plant and equipment, education, research and development). Corporations that move manufacturing operations abroad should be punished, by barring them from Government contracts, expropriating the business, or personally fining, deporting, or flogging executives (see discussion of crime in "Domestic Policy", below). Business schools should be firmly guided to stop teaching executives to focus on short-term profits but instead to work for long-term success, in terms of both profitability and social responsibility. And we should establish aggressive programs of language training to enable us to sell to the world in the world's own languages. If little Taiwan can manufacture tens of thousands of different items for dozens of countries, we can manufacture millions of items for all the countries of the world. But if we cannot compete with countries whose people make 10 cents an hour, then we must seal our borders against destructive competition from them.

It serves no one's interest to sacrifice the United States on the altar of free trade, especially in that the grossly abused people of countries we cannot compete with would not benefit from that sacrifice in any way. Quite the contrary, if the United States, the engine of world development, collapses, the Earth will plunge into a new Dark Age as dreadful as Europe entered after the fall of Rome — but with nuclear weapons in the hands of dozens of unstable governments.

— We must enact tax credits for approved investment, not categorical (promiscuous) capital-gains tax cuts. Few people understand what "capital gains" are. A "capital gain" occurs when someone sells something for more than he paid. In the case of a stock, he bought low and sold high(er). Cuts in capital-gains taxes do nothing to aid competitiveness, because after the first sale, the benefits from all other trades go not to the corporation that issued the stock but to individual stockholders who buy from other individuals. All the money changes hands between stockholders; none goes to the corporation or its employees, so none can be invested in job creation. None.

— The United States must end Japan's one-sided trade war against us by counterattacking and sealing our borders against all Japanese goods whatsoever until Japan actually does open its borders, not just "promise" to do so some indefinite future day. Not one Japanese car, VCR, nut, bolt, or rice cracker should be permitted into the United States until Japan has given in to every single demand we make of it, without exception.

Japan has been waging one-sided economic war on the United States for decades. Each time the U.S. complains about some unfair act or other, the Japanese promise to make changes. But they never do. Each new false "promise" restarts the clock. The U.S. Government waits for the Japanese to live up to their promise. They don't. The U.S. calls them on the carpet and demands action. They promise they'll do something this time, and that promise resets the clock again! Every time they leave the room where they make each new round of phony "promises", they laugh at the stupid Americans who believe "promises" that are obviously never going to be lived up to. The U.S. ruling class pretends to believe each new round of "promises", and announces that it is "getting tough". But the U.S. ruling class is shot-thru with economic traitors whose personal self-interest is invested in Japanese auto dealerships, import businesses, etc., and who have no intention whatsoever of holding Japan to so much as a single promise. That must change, but will in fact change only if the people tell their Government, "If you won't fight back in Japan's war against us, we'll go to war against you, and there will be lots and lots of new people in the Government after the next election."

We should indeed go on the offensive, to drive the Japanese ruling class from power by pointing out to the people of Japan that it is absurd for them to pay 7 to 10 times the world price for rice, meat, and other basic commodities just because their ruling class doesn't want the U.S. to sell in Japan. Within six months of our sealing the border, the Japanese ruling class will be out, the people of Japan will be in charge of their own country for the first time, and they will give us everything we ask for — because the alternative is starvation. Japan sends 40% of all its exports to one country, the United States, and cannot live without us. Japan is so dependent upon us that only insane weakness — or treason — on the part of our leadership elite can explain why we didn't long ago establish the proper relationship between Japan and the United States: Japan as respectful supplicant, the U.S. as generous superior — unless, of course, Japan joins the Union.

DOMESTIC POLICY

— We can fund health insurance for the uninsured by imposing a new $5 a pack tax on cigarets (and comparable taxes on other forms of tobacco) and urge Canada to bring its prices to comparable levels so smokers can't spend less than $6 or $7 a pack anywhere in 7 million square miles. Tobacco is our No. 1 public-health enemy. If we refuse to outlaw it pure and simple, we can at least make smokers pay for some of the harm they do. With 26% of the adult population paying $5 tax per pack, smoking levels of only one pack a day would bring in $85 billion a year!

— In the 1980s and early 90s, crime had gotten so far out of hand that it could be dealt with successfully only thru draconian severity. If people are accustomed to obeying the law, a slap on the wrist might keep them from straying. But when order has crumbled into chaos, the only way to restore order is by extreme severity, up to and including capital and corporal punishment imposed without unwarranted mercy or delay. Save mercy for people who deserve it. Fortunately, most states have reimposed the death penalty, which led to steep drops in crime of all kinds (for a lot of would-be career criminals realized that even petty crimes might be putting them on a road that would eventually lead to Death Row). Unfortunately, the restrictions on capital punishment are so numerous in some statutes as to make them basically a fraud upon the credulous. In New York State, for instance, a Republican governor brought in an ostensible capital-punishment law after more than a decade's resistance by former Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo. Crime dropped like a stone. But the legislation was shot full of holes, and applied to a very narrow range of crimes. Moreover, prosecutors could refuse to seek the death penalty for even the most grotesquely monstrous crimes. Criminals realized that New York's 'death penalty' law was a sham, and murder rates rose again! To be effective, harsh laws must be real, and really enforced.

Floggings, beatings, and wholesale executions of the criminal class would make every part of this country safe for every decent person. Virtually no one is willing to die to make a living at crime. Incarceration doesn't work. Anyone too dangerous to be out on the street is too dangerous to be left alive.

It is not moderate to consent to 21,000 murders a year and millions of crimes of other types. It is not extreme to kill killers, beat people who commit assault, break the fingers of pickpockets or even amputate the offending hand after a third conviction. Let the punishment fit the crime and there will be less crime. If draconian punishments terrorize the criminal class, great! Decent people have been scared too long. Let criminals fear for their lives for a change.

— The telephone, not the gun or knife, has become the most common weapon used in robberies in this country, and that's got to stop. 900 numbers and other such abusive telephone "services", especially "phone sex" "services" and "psychic hotlines" should be banned by law. The most any call should cost is the toll plus 25¢ — not 25¢ a minute but 25¢ total.

— Violence in entertainment should be curtailed by legal censorship. Contrary to what con artists posing as civil libertarians may say, the Constitution does not hold commercial speech above censorship. The First Amendment was intended to protect personal self-expression and promote full examination of political issues. It was not designed to enable multi-billion-dollar media empires to make an easy but immoral buck by making people callous to human suffering or by creating baseless anxiety in making us feel that society is vastly more violent than it really is and filling people's heads with nightmare images that drive a few unstable people over the edge of madness. Entertainment for profit is commercial speech. It is not protected by the First Amendment.

— We must sure that recent reforms of welfare do encourage marriage; keep families together; assist and reward education, job-specific training, and paid employment; and put welfare recipients to socially useful work. Unskilled mothers can at the very least staff daycare centers; they know how to take care of children, don't they? Unskilled men, women, and teenagers can sweep and mop hallways in housing projects, clean alleyways, provide security patrols around the projects, deliver meals to the elderly, and provide a host of other services we now have to pay public employees to provide.

To the extent we are using public funds to support people on welfare, we should reclassify welfare recipients as public employees, since they are on the public payroll, and hold them to high standards of working conduct and cooperation.

— We should strive to end economic segregation in this country, rich in one place, middle class in another, poor in yet another. We actually have entire towns where the poor have been deliberately "zoned" out. Fast-food workers, housekeepers, and other people in poorly paid occupations in such towns must literally be bused in! or the rich and middle-class just can't get services. That kind of economic segregation is in no one's interest.

Especially must the poor must not be segregated into ghettos of hopelessness but sprinkled across society thru scatter-site housing. Every new apartment house should set aside a percentage of units for the poor equal to their ratio of the local population, and those units should be scattered within the building. If poor tenants are held to precisely the same standards of conduct as other tenants, the dynamics of a mixed community will destroy the culture of poverty.

— All civil-rights and antidiscrimination laws that interfere with private property and freedom of association are unconstitutional and must be abolished. They have set us at each other's throats, and made everyone feel oppressed by an all-invasive Government that tells us whom to hire, promote, fire, and let into our clubs and heart. Freedom of association is necessarily also freedom from association. The Constitution authorizes Government to control only Government's own hiring and firing, not private companies' personnel policies nor the admission standards of private clubs, bars, restaurants, etc.

Private businesses must reclaim the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, at any time. Businessmen aren't stupid. They know that they are most likely to do good business with the broadest possible clientele. But if a businessman wants to serve only part of the potential consumer base, he must have that right.

Until very recently the Federal Government actually reversed the constitutional intent: it told private entities what to do but reserved to itself the right to discriminate in its own hiring. That is, if a Congressman wanted only certain types of people on his staff, he had the right to select against people not of that type. We suspect that such discrimination continues, whether recent reforms forbid it or not. Further, Government actively discriminates against homosexual soldiers and teachers.

Blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics, lesbians and women more generally all pay taxes, so have the right to expect their Government to treat them fairly. Minorities and women do not, however, have the right to tell any private club that it must accept them, nor any private employer that he must hire them. Minorities can, and should, form their own businesses and clubs, with suchever admission standards as they might want. They may thus be able to prove that different policies work better, but they would in any case find the economic strength and social reinforcement they need in institutions of their own creation.

As a member of the most unpopular minority in this country, homosexual men, XP Chairman Schoonmaker has seen a lot of bigotry but also seen that many members of minorities imagine bigotry that's not there, and blame their failures in life on discrimination when they're really due to personality defects and character flaws. Craig Schoonmaker is one gay man who doesn't go thru life with a chip on his shoulder, seeing slights and conspiracies all around him. In fact, most of the unpleasantness he's had over homosexuality has come from maladjusted homosexuals, not well-adjusted heterosexuals. `Straight' people have their own lives to live. By far most have no inclination nor energy to conspire against gay men, any more than white people have time, energy, or money enough left after working, taking care of the house, kids, and frail parents, shopping and cooking, attending PTA meetings, doing volunteer work, and fulfilling all their other responsibilities to conspire against blacks, Hispanics, or anyone else.

Members of minorities can succeed if they set realistic goals, acquire the skills necessary to achieve those goals, work hard, cooperate cheerfully with others without projecting onto them prejudices they may well not have, and persevere over the long haul, because few people achieve success overnite. Most have to work for years and years, sometimes even decades, before they succeed. In setting goals, then, people must choose things they are interested enough in to work at for a very long time. That way, even if they don't attain some grandiose goal, they will at least enjoy a life of effort and accomplishment in an activity they enjoy.

— The legal fiction that there are Indian "nations" within the territory of the United States should be ended. All treaties with "sovereign", "Native American" "nations" should be renounced, and the reservation system abolished. In its place should be created Indian corporations on the model of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, so that Indians would always have a place to return to if they find life in the larger society too hard, but they would be encouraged to join the mainstream of this most successful multiracial society in the history of the world.

Indians might lead the environmental movement in creative new directions, such as enacting the proposed enormous Great Plains reserve that would restore tens of thousands of square miles of grassland to their original condition. In such a new wilderness, Plains Indians who wanted to could resume their traditional way of life in reality, not just as a show for tourists.

What Indians must not be permitted to do, however, is evade taxes or open gambling establishments in areas that don't want them. In a particularly scandalous case, one "tribe" of 8 Pequot Indians in Connecticut was allowed to open a multimillion-dollar casino in violation of Connecticut law, a casino that has almost no Indian managers or employees! That kind of crap should be ended pronto.

— Developing nonpolluting energy should be a major Government and industry focus. Wind power has huge potential, especially in areas like the Great Plains. Efficient, state-of-the-art windmill farms in places like North Dakota could power cities as far away as Chicago, and wave-power generators could line the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts near most of our great cities. In addition to producing enormous amounts of energy, generators hooked to waves and tides could reduce erosive wave action on fragile shorelines, such as barrier islands and coastal wetlands, by absorbing some of the energy that would otherwise pound the shore. Tropical storms and hurricanes might actually become energy boons, partly tamed and turned to human use!

Nuclear power, however, should be forbidden everywhere (save on spacecraft sent millions of miles from Earth). It is not safe, because it produces poisonous substances of unprecedented deadliness that remain dangerous for thousands of years and can be stolen by terrorists. One pound of plutonium dumped in a reservoir [or scattered by a "dirty bomb"] could kill a hundred thousand people. Leave uranium in the ground, where it belongs.

— Government should encourage nonpolluting transportation, as for instance dual-powered automobiles: the main drive would be an electric motor, but there would also be an internal-combustion engine (capable of burning gasoline, alcohol, hydrogen and/or natural gas) as backup in case the batteries go dead between charges. Developments of this sort have been reported in media. A Japanese auto manufacturer has developed a dual-engine car, but it is not being offered in the United States yet. (Nor should it be allowed here unless Japan meets U.S. standards on the openness of its economy, as discussed above.) And U.S. researchers have made a major advance in creating fuel cells that employ gasoline, that should be adapted to powering cars within a few years. The technology already exists for dual-powered cars. Government should help create a market for such devices, starting with its own enormous fleet of vehicles of many types, used by many agencies.

— We should create new cities in underpopulated areas, employing the best thinking in urban planning, transportation and communications, then evacuate people from the worst areas of old cities to the new cities for at least as long as it takes to reconstruct their old neighborhoods. They should then be permitted to return to the older cities — should they so desire (many won't) — only if they have the skills and education to find employment there.

New cities should be laboratories of the social sciences and showcases for the best in modern architecture and public art. Why not one new city comprising a single great structure — Frank Lloyd Wright's mile-high building — surrounded by parks, farms, and wilderness, but no urban sprawl?

— The National Endowment for the Arts should be defunded, save for the small cost of reinventing the NEA into a "people's patron of the arts" thru which ordinary citizens who want to give only small amounts (even $2 or 5¢, as thru canisters displayed at galleries and museums across the Nation) can show their support for the arts by small donations that, merged with millions of other small donations, could provide major funding to worthy artists. Canisters by each artist's works in museums would permit individuals to `vote' for individual artists they really like.

Contributions to the arts should be voluntary, not compulsory. Taxes, that is, money taken at gunpoint from unwilling givers, should be devoted to social needs, not luxuries. And people who give even $25 to the NEA should have a vote on who heads the NEA.

— Tipping should be abolished. The cost of service should be figured into the price in restaurants, bars, taxis, garages, and the like, just as it is in every other industry. Tipping is a corrosive practice that amounts to bribery. Every customer is entitled to good service, not just customers who offer large bribes. Working people should not have to "kiss up" to customers to get fair compensation for their labor. And taxpayers every cent of whose income is subject to withholding should not be cheated by dishonest bartenders and taxi drivers who massively underreport their tips. People who pay withholding have to make up the difference, and that's grossly unfair.

To enforce a ban on tipping, we need merely provide that any money left as a tip must be turned over to the Federal Government to reduce the deficit — and make appropriating tips for one's own use a Federal offense, punishable by fines of 100 times the amount stolen.

— All levels of Government should forbid misleading prices. $99.95 is not "about $90" but almost exactly $100. Too many people remember the $90 part and forget the other $9.95 — which is exactly why sleazy businesses set such prices. When sales tax is added, $99.95 is more like $106 (or more) in most states. Prices less than 5% short of a round number should be illegal, and the posted price should include sales tax. Eventually, of course, sales taxes should be completely abolished, for being regressive and thus profoundly unfair to people at lower incomes.

— The FCC must reduce the amount of time that television can give over to commercials, and reduce the number of different commercials that can be shown in a given hour. It should forbid "infomercials" (program-length commercials) outright, forbid the loudness of commercials significantly to exceed the loudness of the programming it interrupts, and forbid excessive reruns on network television as well. (If the Commissioners of the FCC were elected, they would have done these things long ago.)

ABORTION

— Medically unnecessary abortion should be outlawed. In 1978, the success of in vitro fertilization proved that life begins at conception, because a separate life can be created in a little glass dish thousands of miles from both parents and hundreds of miles from the nearest woman. We didn't need such exotic proof of a child's separate life, however, because a boy baby could not be part of "a woman's body" because no cell of "a woman's body" contains a Y-chromosome.

The time to choose whether to have a child is before pregnancy begins, not after. Women today have at least 20 different ways to prevent conception, including tubal ligation (having their "tubes tied"), which is a matter of control over "a woman's own body", whereas abortion clearly is not. Women who choose to remain fertile choose to gamble with pregnancy. She who plays reproductive roulette cannot be heard to complain if she loses. You gamble, you risk losing. That's the way it works.

Pregnancy represents 1% of a woman's life; abortion ends 100% of a child's life. The balance of equities and hardships clearly tips in the direction of the child, and protecting children is a sacred obligation. It is grotesque that Radical Feminism has transformed women from the font of life into, instead, priestesses in a cult of death. The Aztecs had nothing on the present-day U.S., which yearly sacrifices one and a half million babies at the altar of the great goddess Feminism. Though it may not be easy to accept momentary embarrassment or to give a child up for adoption, where is it written that morality is easy? The best things in life may be the hardest.

Women have been sold a bill of goods in the suggestions that the rewards of abortion and "career" (that is, for most women, a boring grind at a mindless job with people some of whom you can't stand) are greater than the rewards of motherhood. A woman who kills her own child is left wondering, the rest of her life, what he — or she — would have been like. A doctor? engineer? President of the United States? Would he, or she, have written a symphony or the Great American Novel? painted a masterpiece? found the cure for cancer or convened the world conference that finally ends war? Or would he or she just have been a decent, hard-working person whose smiles lit up her life, whose achievements filled her with pride, and whose love and financial support would have taken care of her in her last years?

The term "right to life" derives from the Declaration of Independence. Women contemplating abortion should consider another phrase from that same document: "the pursuit of happiness". Is childlessness happiness? Does causing death make women happier than giving life? And is prosperity or career built on the death of babies worth having? No; no; and no.

XP encourages women to exult in their womanliness and return the hijacked feminist movement to its original goal: to move everyone to accept women as women, not imitation men, and value "women's work" (as in the home, school, hospital, not just workplace) and such "feminine" traits as sensitivity to people, nurturance, and helpfulness. What ever happened to that?

AIDS

Everything Government says about AIDS is false.

• HIV does not cause AIDS. The man who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier of France's Pasteur Institute, says HIV, acting alone, is "insufficient" to cause AIDS. The British science magazine Nature concurs. Yet, after fifteen years of intensive, worldwide research, no "co-factor" has been found that can make the feeble virus HIV deadly.
• AIDS is not spread by sex or blood. In fact, AIDS — as distinct from HIV — doesn't spread at all but remains confined year after year to the same small "risk groups". If HIV doesn't cause serious illness (and it doesn't), who cares how far it spreads?
• AIDS does discriminate. It is found almost wholly among minorities: homosexual, black, and Hispanic men. Germs, however, can't tell gay from straight, black from white, Spanish-speaking from English-speaking or male from female. Ergo, AIDS is not caused by germs. The one thing the "risk groups" have in common is tolerance of drug use.
• Hemophiliacs, like Ryan White, die not from an acquired immune deficiency but from the lethal, inherited defect hemophilia.
• Transfusion recipients who die from opportunistic infections do so because they're weak to begin with. Blood is given only to people who might otherwise die, because transfusions, in themselves, are hazardous to underlying health.
• AIDS is not infectious. It does not pass from person to person, but arises in each independently, like heart disease, cancer, lead poisoning, asbestosis, or black lung disease.
• AIDS in fact is not a "disease" at all. It is an injury: a drug injury, mainly atop liver damage from hepatitis or cirrhosis. A damaged liver cannot cleanse the bloodstream of drugs, "poppers", and their metabolic byproducts, so those poisons build up within the body. When levels get high enough, those poisons kill T-cells — but also nerve cells, lymph cells, and many others. That's why AIDS patients suffer dementia, lymphoma, and cancer, which have nothing to do with T-cells.

Ask yourself, if AIDS is a "rapidly spreading epidemic", how come the number of people "infected with AIDS" never increases? For fifteen years Government has been saying that 1-2 million people are infected with the so-called "AIDS virus". That number never grows. In 1991 it dropped, to 1 million. At year-end 1993, a survey of blood samples suggested that the total number of people infected with HIV is actually on the order of 550,000. Six months later, the Government lowered its official estimate to '600,000 to 1 million' — Government just can't let go of that 1 million figure, even tho an actual survey of real blood showed it to be without basis. What kind of "epidemic" never grows, but instead shrinks? And why don't media ever ask why the number never grows?

If you ask the typical well-informed American how many people in this country are infected with AIDS, he will likely say "1 million", because Government has been using that figure, or variants on it like '600,000 to 1 million' for fifteen years! Why hasn't everybody caught wise to so obvious a scam? If the number of people "infected with the AIDS virus" never grows, but AIDS does, it is obvious that the virus has nothing to do with AIDS at all.

For twenty years, AIDS has refused to enter the general, (hetero)sexually active population, an impossibility for a venereal disease. Nine times as many men as women have AIDS, even though it is far easier for men to pass any germ to women sexually than the other way around. Tho the claim is made that in Africa AIDS is evenly distributed between men and women, no such pattern exists in the United States, Canada, or Western Europe — or, for that matter, any other place where we have good information — but only in Sub-Saharan Africa, a region in which we have in truth essentially no reliable information at all. In part that is due to the fact that in parts of Africa there is one physician for every 30,000 people, as compared to one physician for every 391 people in the United States. In what Diane Sawyer, when she worked for CBS News' 60 Minutes called "the very heart of AIDS in Africa, the region to the west and north of Lake Victoria, Uganda has one physician per 20,720 people; Tanzania 1 per 19,775; Rwanda 1 per 24,697; Burundi 1 per 31,777! Do we really need some mysterious virus that acts like no other virus known to man, in order to understand why a lot of people in such a region might be deathly ill?

Consider these other biological oddities.

• HIV is said to cause AIDS by destroying T-cells and thus leaving the body defenseless against infection. However, HIV infects less than 1/10th of 1% of all T-cells and is biochemically inactive even in AIDS patients in the last days of their lives, because HIV antibodies suppress HIV. Government says these antibodies cannot prevent the onset of AIDS. Yet Government has spent billions of taxpayer dollars to develop an "AIDS vaccine" that would do nothing but produce exactly those antibodies! Government is sneakily right: antibodies to HIV won't prevent AIDS — because HIV has nothing to do with AIDS.
• HIV does not kill T-cells. It lives inside them and cannot live without them. So even if it did infect a significant percentage of T-cells (which it does not), it doesn't kill them. T-cell depletion, then, would have to arise from some other cause
• Many AIDS patients die from cancer. T-cells don't fight cancer, so depleting them would not give rise to cancer. Chemicals, however, can induce cancer. Recreational drugs are chemicals. So is AZT, a very widely prescribed treatment for nonexistent "HIV disease". AZT is a powerful poison that kills bone marrow, the factory where T-cells are made. Thus, far from preventing T-cell depletion, AZT can actually cause it. If AIDS is defined as T-cell depletion, AZT can cause AIDS! Don't take a deadly poison, AZT, to counteract the harmless virus HIV.

Why does Government say that sex causes AIDS? Think about it. When conservative Republicans took the White House in 1981 (the very year AIDS is said to have begun, though it actually started in mid-1980), the Sexual Revolution was in full swing. Conservatives needed, desperately, to stop it, so launched a Great Sexual Counter-Revolution based on fear. AIDS as fatal sex- and blood-borne disease serves a number of Government purposes:

• It helps scare people away from homosexuality and IV drugs.
• It legitimates anti-gay prejudice. The Nation was beginning to accept homosexuality as a normal part of human variation. So Government invented a "gay plague", proof to the righteous that God in His infinite wisdom was killing gay men for their sins. Never mind that heterosexuals were dying too. "The Lord works in mysterious ways." In that only "promiscuous" heterosexuals or those on hard drugs were dying, maybe that wasn't such a bad thing either. 
• Fear of AIDS works to scare teenagers out of premarital sex and grownups out of adultery, thus "strengthening the family".
• Fear of AIDS encourages use of condoms, which reduces unwanted pregnancy and thus the demand for abortion. Condom use also minimizes transmission of VD (or "STD's", today's fashionable euphemism) and thus reduces demands upon tax-supported VD clinics.
• Fear of AIDS may reduce the number of teenagers who get pregnant. That would (a) reduce the number of teenage dropouts, (b) reduce the number of illegitimate children, and thus doubly (c) reduce the number of people on welfare, generation to generation.
• Finally, since AIDS strikes blacks and Hispanics disproportionately, combining fear of sex and use of condoms may reduce the number of children born to minorities, and thus push back the day when whites face becoming a minority in their own country.

Is it coincidence that AIDS serves Government purposes? Or was AIDS invented precisely to attack these 'social problems'? The issue is not whether the goals are legitimate but whether the means, lying about matters of life and death, is legitimate. Government tells people that sex, which gives life and cements relationships, kills, but drugs, which destroy individuals and ravage society, are "safe" if injected thru a clean needle or taken noninjectively. That foments interpersonal suspicion, intergroup hatred, and increased drug use as solace for emotional emptiness.

No, sex does not kill. No, drugs are not "safe", no matter how you take them. The exact opposite is true: sex is safe; drugs kill. AIDS is a drug injury, not a disease at all. Don't take drugs and you won't get AIDS, no matter how many people of whatever gender you may sleep with. Enjoy the natural pleasures of sex and love. Avoid the phony pleasures of drugs. You'll live longer. And better.

For a comprehensive overview of the science of AIDS that shows that HIV is plainly not the cause, go to http://www.virusmyth.com. Look especially to the articles of Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D., Professor of Molecular Biology at the University of California/Berkeley and a member of the National Academy of Sciences; and the contributions by John P. Lauritsen, gay historian and investigative writer on AIDS.

*

The Expansionist Party believes in the United States as it was intended to be, a "city on a hill" for all the world to see; a model of social and racial justice; a New World, better than the Old, that will find the better way and renew the whole world. The American Revolution was profoundly revolutionary, and the patterns it established served us well until misguided people started tampering with the basic plan. We must restore Government to the people, from whom it has in recent decades been ' progressively' taken.

We cannot just tend to our own affairs. We are a great and dynamic civilization. What we do within our borders spills over those borders and affects others, for good or ill. We must have confidence in our civilization, and bring its benefits to others, all around the planet. XP is working to do that. Perhaps you'd like to help.

Being a small organization working on huge goals, XP cannot afford factionalism, so is a party-discipline organization in which members confine disagreements to internal discussions and present a united front to outsiders. Policy is set by the Chairman with the advice of members, but in the event of disagreement among members the decision of the Chairman is final.

Members are invited to share their thoughts with leadership: informally, in person, by phone, or by letter; and formally, thru advisory committees. Local chapters may form using the Expansionist Party name so long as they adhere to XP's announced policies. If issues arise in which the Party has not stated a position, chapters must ask for a ruling before speaking in the Party's name.

XP is part of a loose alliance of statehood organizations, the United States International (USI). Individuals who share some but not all of XP's views are invited to start organizations of their own, under the USI banner or otherwise.

XP expressly rejects any suggestion that the United States is destined to rule the world by virtue of racial or linguistic superiority. Rather, we advocate an equitable federal union that shares power without distinction between old states and new. Annexations may be accomplished thru treaties that survive union, as might permit a phase-in period to allow adjustment to U.S. law, and might forbid new states from voting for constitutional amendments that would change the fundamental structure of the United States (e.g., to substitute a parliamentary form of government) for some reasonable period, perhaps 50 years from admission.

XP's membership year begins July 4 and all memberships are renewable at the same time to simplify recordkeeping. Dues are US$36.00 per year, prorated at $3.00 per month, starting the 1st of the month after an application is received. Students and seniors (age 65 or older) pay half the regular rate, as do additional members at the same address. The Party does not presently issue a mailed newsletter but maintains a website thru which members and others can follow the Party's activities and learn the Party's take on policy issues.

If you would like information on a specific topic that is not addressed here, do not hesitate to contact us by email to XPUS@aol.com or by mail to L. Craig Schoonmaker, Chairman, Expansionist Party of the United States, 295 Smith Street, Newark, New Jersey 07106-2517, UNITED STATES.

(This is the end of this area.)  [Return to the top of this page]  [Expansionist Party homepage]