[   ]   Runaway taxing and spending, inflation, uncontrolled immigration, gun control; or

[   ]   Loss of your Constitutional right to control over your own body

The name of this organization is The United Party of America;  it may also be referred to, and known simply as, the "United Party".

The United Party is a political hybrid, combining the most beneficial elements traditionally associated with both the progressive, and conservative, political movements; resulting in a moderate ideology, better reflecting the views and values of a greater number of  Americans than the other, more extremist, parties; and behind which more Americans may choose to unite.

• Fiscally Conservative;

• Constitutional; and

• Pro-Choice.

Contents

Tenets of the United Party

United Party Statement on Immigration

Being United -- Join the United Party; and comments and suggestions

United Support -- Contribute to the growth of the United Party

1. Except in the instance of a foreign power physically invading our shores, requiring a balanced federal budget.

Most American citizens can't spend more than they have; they have to stick to a budget; it's time the government did, too. This will rein in "wish list" spending which would be, presumably, paid for by future generations; and which, in the meantime, undermines our currency and fiscal stability as a nation. Inflation is a hidden "tax on savings" that falls hardest upon people on fixed incomes, such as retired citizens. A Balanced Federal Budget will promote sensible spending, fiscal stability, and a strong American dollar. Further, to avoid wasting taxpayer's money on interest, the immense present federal debt needs to be amortized at a reasonable, and do-able, rate of paydown. We also support the value of dollar being tied to the price of gold, or some other tangible commodity in finite supply; to stem inflation, and to ensure future confidence, both domestically, and among nations, in our currency.

We cannot keep kicking the national debt "down the road" and watch it grow as it goes. In time, the cost of interest on it would become a substantial part of Gross Domestic Product and taxes. In other words, Americans would have to work more, just to keep up with interest on the national debt, and their standard of living would be lowered. Any viable federal candidate should be prepared to show and promote an amortization schedule that retires most of the national debt over a course of years.

Should there be NO national debt? Not necessarily. The national debt is primarily debt instruments -- savings bonds, T-bills, etc. -- held by U.S citizens. Elimination, altogether, would deny these people, many of them retired, of the safest place to keep their money and earn reasonable interest on it. And a small, manageable national debt can fund short-term federal projects. But the present national debt is not manageable -- it amounts to about $100,000 for every U.S. man, woman, and child.

• Welfare payments for able-bodied working age people are to be discouraged, in favour of providing productive wage-paying work for same;

• AMERICA WORKS when AMERICANS WORK. It's time the government (taxpayers) paid "summer vacation" was over. Anyone receiving unemployment comp should be required to submit a resume for the states' unemployment agencies. to put into an online "job pool", made available to prospective employers. The employers can then contact, through the agency, the out-of-work person to schedule an interview. Anyone who refuses offered employment without good and reasonable cause would be immediately cut from unemployment comp. Unemployment comp is supposed to be a safety net for people who CAN'T work -- not a payoff for people who'd just rather not.

• Taxpayers with children are expected to pay their fair share of taxes.
The costs of child-rearing are solely the responsibility of those who make them, not the taxpayers as a whole, and it is an inequitable, socialist, redistribution of earnings, to expect the taxpayers, at large, to pay for raising other people's children.

In this, our current tax structure gives a huge monetary "bonus" to people, just for making kids. There is a whole matrix of tax breaks -- the Child Tax Credit, the misnamed "Earned Income" Credit, the Child Care Credit, et al.; which we'll call, collectively, the "Child Tax Subsidy". These things are actually welfare, now for the middle-class, wrapped in a tax form. This combination of benefits can be as much as $10,000 or more, for having one child. Everyone else pays for this. It is the largest government breeding program not administered by the USDA. In the end, many of these parents pay no taxes on their income, and get a "refund" even if no tax has been withheld. It is time that these people paid their fair share like everyone else. Tax is a zero-sum game -- subsidizing one group costs all others more.. Having young children should not be a "Get Out Of Tax Free" card, at the expense of seniors, singles, and couples who don't make them.

And it's not just for needy families, which in some cases, may be justifiable; it is, in effect, socialistic welfare for the middle-classes, at its worst. In the last round of government payments, surveys show that a lot of people didn't actually use them for necessities; but for things like stock market bets. That is not what the taxes, that working people pay, are for.

• " . . . [A democracy] can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing . . . ."
                                                   -- attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747 - 1813)

WHY THEY'RE GAINING ON US, ECONOMICALLY
Our government pays people for making more people.
The Chinese government pays people for making more product.

• In Iraq, and Afghanistan, for example, our futile, expensive, and years-long "hearts and minds" campaign was not justified. Our justified purpose was to topple governments which posed a threat to world security. Once done, we should have been done, there. But to try to go further and supplant ingrained cultural norms of the region, some based in religion, with our own, was wrong. In a place where, for instance, the strength, stability, and fidelity of the family is an integral element of their culture, and protected by their customs, it is well beyond our conscionable prerogatives to try to change, for instance, the way women in their culture dress; or their roles in society. There are good reasons why each nation is sovereign; domestic policies and its culture and society have evolved, and are attuned to that nation's societal environment and needs. As nations, we must each respect that sovereignty; and we have no more right imposing our norms and standards upon them, than they would have imposing theirs upon us.

• SEND THE "DREAMERS" BACK TO "DREAMLAND". We support the return of the DACA immigrants either to their country of origin, or one of their choice which will accept them; and reversing the effects of the Obama and Biden eras' immigration policies by similarly deporting, as much as is lawful, the waves of "refugee" immigrants that entered the United States under those administrations.

• Abortion cannot be ended. As long as there are wire coat hangers, there will be abortions; so this should not be a political issue; our political decisions (like which candidate would really be the BEST administrator or legislator) must be based upon things that we can do something about;

• Legalization has just made pregnancy termination clean and safe, so some girl won't be hemorrhaging to death in some back alley; so if people were REALLY pro-life, they'd want to keep it clean and safe;

• The use of contraception (as is well-promoted and made available by Planned Parenthood^®) is preferable to abortion, and is to be encouraged among those who don't want to make children; and

• The ready-availability of early abortion reduces the incidence of late-term ones.

(This party is not affiliated with the nonprofit organization, Planned Parenthood, and said organization does not endorse this party, or any of its candidates.)

• We can control Climate Change, Environmental Destruction, and Epidemic Disease, simply by controlling our population. Overpopulation also increases human propensity for crime, and war."
                                                                                        -- Adam Steele

• A discussion of the many reasons why the survival of our way of life, our American economy and quality of life, and even our survival as a species, may depend upon global population control; may be found in the "environmental reasons" section of http://amalgamatedgood.org

(This party is not affiliated with the nonprofit organization, The Amalgamated Good Foundation, which maintains that site; and said organization does not endorse this party, or any of its candidates.)

• In recognition that the marriage contract is, presently, the only contract that may be routinely breached, with monetary reward to the breaching party; we support repeal of any and all laws that tend to monetarily benefit said breaching party;

• As words mean things, we support repeal of no-fault divorce;

• We support laws which strengthen the institutions of marriage and family;

• Child Support. Generally, if a woman wants her children to be supported, she should marry their father, and stay that way. That provides for the best support of children in all ways. Exceptions apply in instances where a spouse's acts have rendered a marriage untenantable, e.g. physical abuse or infidelity.

• In support of the sanctity of marriage, in states where the same have, heretofore, been repealed, we support reinstatement of laws relating to the crimes and/or torts of adultery, alienation of a spouse's affection, and seduction (of a virgin) under promise of marriage. In states which have never had said laws, we support their enactment.

• As children are meant to be raised by two parents; and this is more beneficial to the children, the parents, and to America; we support repeal of any and all laws, including tax provisions, that create incentive or benefit for single-parenting by monetarily benefiting a single-parent, over what that person's financial status would have been (insofar as it is affected by governmental contribution or taxation), if married to the other parent.

• More and more, the costs of child rearing (even for parents who aren't needy) are being paid by the government (i.e. other taxpayers). This is wrong. These costs are the parents' responsibility -- not those of taxpayers who didn't make children, or who already paid the costs of raising their own, and are now, perhaps, senior citizens. They should not be called on now, to pay for someone else's kids, but that is what our present tax structure does. And as the government assumes more and more of child costs, it also takes license -- that is, a larger hand in determining HOW the child will be raised.

• We support laws establishing that parents have full control over, as well as responsibility for, their children while those children are members of the parents' household. This includes prerogative to use reasonable discipline as necessary without fear of governmental intrusion. Anyone who has had to deal with an incorrigible child knows that sometimes a firm swat is the only thing that teaches them which end is up.

As used herein,
"Marriage" means a binding contract for lifelong union of a man and a woman, whether or not formalized, licensed, or ratified by any State.
"Family" means a married man and woman, together with any offspring that they might produce.

There's a lot to be said for chopping off his head (if permitted by law).

Note: It has been well said that we are not a nation of men, but rather, a nation of laws. This platform supports legislative change to some of those laws -- it's how we do things in America. Nothing herein supports, and the United Party does not support anyone "taking the law into their own hands", vigilantism, lynching, or any other lawlessness or criminal activity.

A few years back, Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd; and Minneapolis exploded with violence, rioting, and burning by people who were outraged because they believed that white police officers were being allowed to kill certain blacks with relative impunity.

Suppose, for a moment, that, following Derek Chauvin's murder of George Floyd, we had simply and promptly lopped off his head (i.e. if legislation provided for same). Do you think that would have spared a lot of the civil unrest that destroyed much of Minneapolis, and swept the nation? There's a lot to be said for people having confidence that justice will be done; and knowing that one man's law is every man's law;

Why the death penalty was rolled back. Under the law, a jury is presumed to be infallible. They can't make mistakes. Except that, a few years ago, a group of journalism students demonstrated, conclusively, using DNA and other evidence, that about half of the convicted individuals waiting on Illinois's death row, COULD NOT HAVE done the crimes of which they were convicted. This called for an immediate Governor's moratorium, in Illinois, on the carrying out of the death penalty, and began the rollback of that penalty in other states. It was a very final solution, that could not be undone should new evidence surface showing that it was imposed in error. Notwithstanding the presumed "infallibility" of a jury, there was a very apparent need to be sure we weren't executing the wrong person. It wasn't that the penalty was unjust, under certain circumstances; but it was hard to be absolutely sure that it was being properly applied, and once done, it can't be undone, if the jury was wrong.

Now, fast forward to the Derek Chauvin (George Floyd) case. Here, the evidence left no doubt as to what was done, and who was involved. It more resembled an execution, as officers held back the crowd while Chauvin choked the life out of Floyd. The evidence was incontrovertible and leaves nothing to the imagination. It's not a matter of reasonable doubt -- it leaves NO DOUBT as to what happened, who the actors were, and who did what.

It has been estimated that it costs taxpayers about $50,000 a year to keep a maximum security criminal in prison. For Chauvin's 20+ year sentence, that's over a million dollars. Why? Similarly, in the Parkland (Florida) shooting, the gunman killed 17 students and teachers, and wounded 17 more. His sentence? Life imprisonment without parole. The shooter was 17, so taxpayers will be supporting him for a long time -- the public price tag could reach well over $1 million. Again, the evidence was incontrovertible.

Millions of dollars in tax cost to keep murderers alive in prison? Were it legal, in murder cases which leave NO DOUBT as to what happened, a guillotine would be much cheaper (look for one from Wal-Mart, or Amazon; or maybe a used one on Ebay -- they don't get much wear and tear). There is, of course, a certain public opposition to the idea of a civilized society killing people under rule of law. But we can't have murderers among us. Should we pay for keeping those killers alive? What quality of life do they have in prison? Unnatural death is not a novel or unusual thing in this world. It is all around us, happens every day, and often befalls innocent people such as on the highways, or in war, or in urban cross-fire -- people who are far less deserving of that fate. As a matter of justice, it is appropriate for murderers, when the evidence makes the crime clear, without room for question, ever.

In the Chauvin case, had this remedy been lawful and used, it can be well argued that this would have prompted the nation's healing. The groups aggrieved by Chauvin's actions, and probably more so by the way the case was handled; would have seen justice done; and some of the great civil unrest and riots might have been averted.

Again nothing herein is to advocate unlawful conduct, or anyone "taking the law into their own hands." We support legislation, however, providing for execution of convicted murderers, and particularly multiple murderers, where the objective evidence leaves no room for doubt of their guilt. Further, to quell potential civil unrest, and maintain public confidence in our justice system, it should be mandated that any appeals be prioritized and expedited so that the sentence is carried out no more than 90 days from the date of conviction. For there to be public confidence in our judicial system, justice must be prompt, and it must be certain.

In 2006, Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. was convicted of the kidnapping and brutal murder of Dru Sjodin, a 22 yr. old University of North Dakota co-ed, from Pequot Lakes, MN. Rodriguez remained in federal custody, on death row, for 17 years. In May, 2023, and following U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland's declaring a moratorium on the death penalty, Rodriguez's sentence was commuted to life without parole. In 2003, Sjodin was abducted from a shopping mall parking lot, raped, and found, with her throat slit, in a ravine near Crookston, MN. Taxpayers have been supporting her murderer for 17 years, and now will support him for the rest of his lifetime. Why?

"Those who deny the rights of others, deserve them not for themselves."
                                                -- Abraham Lincoln (slightly paraphrased)

Putting it into perspective. There is, of course, a stigma attached to the scenario of people killing people in the electric chair, gas chamber, etc. It is human nature for these things to arouse controversy and they don't seem right. Maybe a solution lies in changing the manner of execution to one which is more palatable and common. Like, if we put the convicted killer in a nice sports car and release him on the highway. At the same time, we give the executioner a few stiff drinks, and an SUV with which he "T-bones" the criminal at an intersection. In one case, it's a highly emotional controversy; in the other, just a statistic, which may not draw more media attention than a brief paragraph, as it is with the many other people who similarly die each year, notwithstanding their not deserving that fate.

The legislative challenge in crafting a capital punishment law that would meet Constitutional muster lies in defining and articulating the standard of proof necessary for implementation of the penalty. It would require that there be clear and conclusive evidence of willful murder (though not necessarily premeditated murder. In the Floyd killing, for example, the murder appears to have been "spur of the moment" and it may not have been premeditated; but the acts constituting murder could be shown to have been willful). Law written along those lines would probably be held to not be cruel or unusual.

Getting serious about auto thefts, juvenile crime.
Recently, the Twin Cities has seen a rash of auto thefts reaching epidemic proportions. By mid-April, 2023, Minneapolis police had already logged almost 3,000 vehicle thefts since Jan. 1. Many of the thieves are juveniles, some as young as 12; and often, the stolen cars are then used to commit other crimes. In some cases, it is suspected, certain parents put their kids up to committing petty crimes, knowing that, if caught, their punishment is likely to be light. The modern notion of dealing with juvenile crime is to offer them "programs" and "counseling". Bullcorn! Then they go out and steal another car. The way to break this cycle is to hold juveniles accountable for their acts, and get the thieves off of the street. The current rash of thefts justifies the declaration of a state of emergency in the Twin Cities, and imposition of guidelines requiring a mandatory sentence of at least 6 months for anyone found to have stolen, or is knowingly in possession of, a stolen motor vehicle. If nothing else, that will, at least, keep the thieves off the street for a while. Juveniles should face the same accountability as anyone else, in a juvenile correctional facility; so that they understand, early on, that their unlawful actions will have consequences. If they are old enough to do the crime, they are old enough to do the time. Sentence terms could be shortened in exchange for bona-fide community service while incarcerated, including the hiring-out of labour, privately, for monetary benefit to the county. That could also address the present labour shortage, improve the community, provide job training to the inmates, and partially compensate the county for the prisoners' upkeep. As of spring 2024, there is a bill in the Minnesota Legislature to increase the age for trial and punishment as an adult to 21 (instead of 18). If passed, this would absolutely be a step in the wrong direction.

8. Universal service to the nation. Freedom is not free. The United States of America was born of the willing military service of its citizens, and will remain free and sovereign only by the willing military service of its citizens. Recognizing the benefits of military service, both to a free nation, and to the individuals who comprise it; we support legislation that all able-bodied men shall, between their 18th and 27th birthdays, be enlisted to serve not less than two years in the military service of the United States of America. Those who conscientiously object to combat duty would have the option to serve domestically, in an "Americorps" capacity, working on domestic projects; but every able-bodied man of proper age must serve, or be expatriated and deported to some country that they ARE willing to serve. Following service, and unless disqualified for cause, said men, and each of them, would be permitted to keep, bear, and carry firearms within any U.S. state, possession, or territory, notwithstanding any state or local laws to the contrary. The presence of this military body, as well as these veterans, well-trained in the proper use of ordnance, to be a continuing protection of America from both invasion from without, and insurrection from within.

•  "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."   --  Thomas Charlton (1809)

Although not mandatory, high school ROTC should be available and encouraged for students of age 16 and over, who want to get a "leg up" in preparing for a military career or service.

9. Religious freedom. As contemplated by the Founders of our great nation, we support religious freedom and encourage participation by all, regardless of their individual religious preferences. To this end, this party makes no endorsement of any specific denomination of religion, and our meetings and activities will not respect any particular religion over any other. Policies and positions will be adopted only where they can be shown to be appropriate and beneficial without any religious reference. We are a political party -- not a church. That doesn't mean that we are atheists. But our purpose is not one of theology -- there are churches, synagogues, and mosques for that -- our purpose is solely to elect candidates who are good for America, and to promote sound public policy. Allowing religious divisiveness within our ranks detracts from that purpose and defeats it.

10. Property rights. We fully support private property rights of the owners of said property, over any and all other persons or entities, and whether the property be residential, commercial, or otherwise; and oppose any invasion, by government, into those rights, regardless of pretense. Government does not generally pay the costs of holding and maintaining said property, or of running a business; and does not assume the risks. The owner does, and it is his sole prerogative to determine all matters regarding, among others, who works for the business, whom it serves, and what lawful conduct (including, but not limited to smoking) shall be permitted on its premises. As concerns business property, this tends to result in a merit-based policy which, in turn, results in the best quality, price, and service to customers. It's hard enough to make it in business. The government doesn't pay the taxes and fixed expenses of the business; they properly have no say in how it's run. In residential property, the interests of the owner are foremost and shall take precedence over municipal interests, and any others. The principle of eminent domain, while recognized, is discouraged and reserved only to be used in instances of extreme necessity. The owner owns and controls his property, and generally, any restriction on his lawful and reasonable use of same constitutes a "taking" of same, as is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

11. Tobacco taxes -- We oppose any tax on tobacco which exceeds the general sales tax on general merchandise. This is America. Government has no valid public purpose in trying to modify people's behaviour through coercion, or to otherwise try to control people's use of a lawful product.

12. Social Security and Medicare are insurance obligations of the government that people paid for, and must be maintained. Further, funding solutions need to be found so that Medicare and Social Security will continue, intact, well past their presently projected "run dry" dates of about 2025 (Medicare) and 2037 (Social Security). It is important to America to ensure the livelihood of its citizens who have worked many years for this country, its economy, and their  fellow citizens, and are now past their working years.

MEDICARE is projected to, by 2025, be forced to reduce the percentage of senior medical expense it can pay. This would be unfortunate, and unnecessary. Medicare should continue to be fully funded. One solution would be to discontinue the child tax subsidies (ante), and expect middle-income parents to pay their fair share like anyone else. This would make an estimated over $500 billion per year available to keep Medicare solvent. The high cost of children is solely the parents' responsibility and having kids should not be a "Get out of tax free" card. Senior services are a different matter. One can decide whether or not to have kids; but they can't decide whether or not to grow old.

14. Election integrity. We support complete repeal of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) as unconstitutional under Art. 1 Sec. 2, et. al, of the U.S. Constitution. To ensure election integrity, we support a) proof of U.S. citizenship, in order to vote; and b) all voting be in person on election day, unless good cause is shown why an absentee ballot should be accepted.

Voting is for U.S. citizens; illegals must not be allowed to run the country and decide elections. Poll statistics show, conclusively, that in Arizona, in 2020, the number of voters who could not show U.S. citizenship, but nonetheless were entitled, by the NVRA, to vote in the federal election and did so; was sufficient to "tip" (decide) the presidential vote of that state. People who are not U.S. citizens should not be determining U.S. government, and it is reasonable and necessary for election officials to require proof of citizenship, if there is any question of same.

Further, in Minnesota, transient college students are allowed to vote in all elections in the precincts or wards where they're temporarily housed to go to school. This may be OK for federal and statewide (if the student is a state resident) elections; but not local issues, particularly not ballot questions affecting local taxes. These large masses of students tend to be predominantly more liberal than the actual permanent residents of a community, and, mostly, don't pay property taxes. So, in a small city that hosts a college or university (example: The City of Bemidji, Minnesota has about 12,000 permanent residents; and about 5,000 students at Bemidji State University) this student vote can easily overwhelm the majority vote of the permanent, taxpaying, residents. Minnesota's smaller communities should not be held politically hostage by the universities they host. Voting on local issues (including city and county offices, local tax referendums, etc.) should be limited to permanent residents of the cities, townships, and counties affected, that will have to live with those election results and pay the property taxes. It should be noted that, even now, the students have the option to vote an absentee ballot for where they actually live when not in school; and this should be made uniform and mandatory. That would solve the problem. Many agencies, including IRS and state taxing agencies, regard a student's state or place of residence as where their traditional domicile is; and not at their temporary address, while they're attending college. Voting rules should, too, conform to this.

In elections with more than two candidates, we support "instant runoff" voting, as it allows people to vote for the candidate that they perceives as best for the job, without risk of having the "spoiler" effect on the election. Under "instant runoff" voting, the voter ranks the candidates, so if his first choice cannot win, the vote is not wasted, but goes to his second choice, and so on, until one candidate has a majority of the vote. This tends to ensure that the winning candidate is one with an ideology that is most reflective of that of the majority of voters.

15. The public schools.

But times have changed. There is no more "redlining" of neighbourhoods. Anyone, of any race, can buy wherever they want and can afford. And most schools have open enrollment, so parents can choose which ones their kids attend, without forced bussing. But, over the years, the schools system painted itself into a corner, so to speak. Because, now, with all students being bussed in anyway, neighbourhood schools to which they had previously walked were closed as new, behemoth schools were built in the middle of nowhere -- in places where students had to be bussed in. Today, this is wasteful, polluting, and a mistake.

Now introducing: Kidsfeet -- the energy-efficient and low-carbon way to get children to their neighbourhood school.

Root of the problem. Also, over the years, much of the nexus -- the connection between the public schools and the community, and its values and standards, has been lost. Public schools started as various parts of the country were settled, with families moving there, and parents in the various communities would, eventually, get together and hire a teacher to teach their kids. And often, they'd build a nearby schoolhouse, often one room, where all "grades" would be taught. There was a tight rapport between the school staff, and the families and community that was employing it. Curricula were designed based on what the community wanted taught, including morals, work ethic, and good citizenship. The parents and the teachers were on the "same page" as to the goal of educating the child; and it was easier to maintain order and good conduct in the learning environment, because the children knew that if they got into trouble at school, they'd later be in trouble at home too.

Over the years, though, the system took on its own autonomy, becoming bureaucratic and detached from the community, and the families. Elected officials began to fund the expanding schools as a public expense, now paid by all property owners in the district, and with the funding came greater control over the schools, now, not by the families who sent their kids there, but rather by detached school boards, administrators, and "academicians" who had their own ideas as to what should be taught, and how.  It became a system unto itself; the employees worked for the school district -- not the families and community; -- sometimes becoming adversaries of, rather than advocates for, the parents and families.

In promotion of learning. The mediocrity (with some prominent exceptions) of the public schools is not likely to change. More and more, voters, though, are learning to just say "no" to their self-serving unquenchable thirst for more money and continuing requests for outrageous operating levies; although in some districts, parents sometimes allow the levies to pass to appease the bureaucracy that holds their children "hostage". We've heard that kidnappers sometimes get money that way, too. As aforementioned, though, in the public schools, generally, throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it -- it just throws away money.

Return to normalcy for those who want it. We see neighbourhood charter schools, where they are instituted, as offering a solution -- or at least a choice. And they may provide a return to the nexus, and common sense, that the schools are meant to have. There have, of course, always been K-12 private schools; but their high cost puts them out of reach of many families. A charter school is one that is open to public enrollment, but its funding comes the state and local funding that would otherwise have gone to the public school system -- distributed instead to the charter school on a per capita enrollment basis (although, presently, the charter school sometimes receives a somewhat lesser per student amount than the public school system would). This allows parents, simply by enrolling their children at the charter school to redirect the public funding to the charter school, outside the public system, that offers the modes of education that the parents prefer. In this way, the better charter schools become better funded and can accommodate more students. Generally, charter schools are less regulated, but held more accountable, than the public schools. Some have a theme, with academic focus in various subjects and fields of education (e.g. music, science, et al.). Already, the more popular charter schools often have waiting lists to get in. We see the expansion of smaller neighbourhood charter schools as a trend as more parents demand quality and performance from where their children attend, and a choice as to what is taught. We support these neighbourhood charter schools, and their funding under the voucher system with parity to the public school funding amounts; to enable families to have a choice in securing quality education for their offspring; and let that demand promote growth of those facilities that are the best performing; to the ultimate benefit of the public that they serve.

Our standard of living, here, exists because the U.S. has a lot of resource (including agricultural, and water); relative to its population density. That makes it kind of an oasis of quality of life, amidst a sea of overpopulated places -- i.e. most of the rest of the world.

And our better-educated populace tends to practice restraint, in family size, more than many third-world nations. This, too, helps preserve our quality of life.

Our resources are vast, but still quite finite, and are now pressed about to the limit. There is only so much productive farmland; and only so much yield per acre that farmers can squeeze from it. Potential human reproduction, however, is not finite -- it expands geometrically. And that is why there are so many impoverished nations, whose inhabitants want to come here.

But we can't allow that. It is said that America is a nation of immigrants; while it is true that at the onset, immigration provided needed labour in a new land; and "settled" the west; we are now at a breaking point where continuing an open border policy will reduce our standard of living, and promote crime, to the same as the rest of the world that people are trying to escape. The oasis would be gone.

Americans are accustomed, for example, to ready availability of commodities. We tend to take it for granted that we'll find plenty of, pretty much, anything we need at the local grocery store, and reasonably. In some other places, people have to wait in a long line just for a chance to buy a loaf of bread. And even now, here in the U.S., people are, more and more, finding empty grocery shelves.

The grocer may, diplomatically, say, "We're having supply-chain issues."
Supply-chain, my donkey! -- It's Too Durn Many People (TDMP).
To where consumption demand exceeds production capacity. This affects both availability of the staples; and price. The resulting inflation further lowers the standard of living, as well as destabilizing the economy.

And we've just been talking food, here -- only one aspect of day-to-day life that is impacted by population density. There are many others, including health and access to health care, environmental destruction, crime and safety, government infrastructure and taxes, and continuation of the culture to which we've become accustomed.

Even personal security is affected. Recently, the Twin Cities have been rocked by waves of crime and violence in public places. There have been roving gangs of violent juveniles, and several innocents -- even children -- caught in crossfire. The Twin Cities never used to be this way. It is worth noting that Minneapolis and St. Paul have, for several years, become "sanctuary cities", that restrict enforcement of immigration laws. Is this the kind of thing that we want to see happening in our cities, towns, and even countrysides?

We are fortunate to have been born Americans (the odds are about 1 in 25 -- so we came out well in that "lottery"); and it is unfortunate that Providence did not give certain impoverished regions a better destiny and more opportunity than they have. But if we "give away the farm" there will be no more farm to utilize -- for us or anyone else. So, if we are to preserve the quality of life that we should all be thankful to enjoy, then America needs to stay for Americans; and excess immigration needs to be stopped.

We are a sharing people and many Americans want to share their good fortune with less fortunate people; there are many charities for that purpose, to which they may contribute; that is the better vehicle.

We have always been a compassionate people. We offer bona-fide asylum when needed. But we must not import "refugees" just because another sovereign nation has a lesser economy; or where we don't agree with their domestic policies. These things are really not our business. We are nether the policemen of the world; nor its dumpster.

For more info re: the present need for global population control, see amalgamatedgood.org/tdmp.html

When Europeans first came here, a few hundred years ago, they called it a "new world", for the opportunity it afforded. Vast fertile plains soils that had not been exhausted by thousands of years of cultivation; land, space, and resources to be shared by a moderate population, unlike those of Europe and Asia which had become packed by the many generations that had dwelt there. And it boasted an interesting experiment in representative government, which, though far from perfect (are those really the best two candidates the major parties could give us from which to choose?) was seen as far better than most other forms; guaranteeing to all certain inherent individual rights; providing, at least, a modicum of participation by the governed; and providing for a capitalist economic system that rewarded innovation and industry and through which anyone could rise through their own hard work. With agriculture as its economic backbone, this socio-political environment spawned innovation and industry making the U.S. a major world power. The greatness of America, in the world arena, became a reality. And it also became a place where others wanted to be.

It is still this relative newness, compared to other lands of the world -- the balance of land, and resource, versus population density -- that contributes to our standard of living and quality of life here in the U.S.A. Will our good fortune continue? With the passage of time, and as migration, travel, technology, and trade result in a shrinking world, it would be naive to think that, even with a protectionist policy, the precedence of America could be maintained indefinitely. In recent years, pockets of unique and distinctive American culture have become "melting pots", and have lost much of their distinction and charm. And as time goes on, societies tend to become more homogeneous, with world economies gravitating toward an average. These things do not bode well for the quality and standard of living, the "oasis", that we, in the U.S., presently enjoy. But we should try to keep this oasis of good living for as long as we can. It is toward that end, of maintaining for as long as possible, the American Greatness and our quality and standard of living, that excess immigration cannot be permitted.

"History, if not learned from, tends to repeat itself. We can take a lesson from the experience of our neighbours and brothers who were here long before we were: The Native Americans tolerated open immigration. It did not work out well for them."

The United Party is a living party that is responsive to its membership. Comments and suggestions to better the United Party may be emailed to comments@unitedpartyofamerica.com

amerR4Ua