Does this party appeal only to religious
(practicing Christians and Jews)?
20. How to categorize a massive influx of muslims and acceptance of islam in the government institutions of America during the recent decades?
Does a "moderate islam", i.e. "muslims-lite"
and "islam-lite" really exist? Is it true as though "Radical
islam is a problem, while moderate islam is a solution"?
26. How to argue against islam in America rephrasing Dayenu of Haggadah (of the Passover celebration).
1. How can this new party possibly make any difference at all?
In short, due to emergency of the situation (2014), due to aggressive exposure of all parties guilty in the 2008/2012 double coup, and due to bringing back the near forgotten constitutional principles appealing to any patriotic conservative mind. (Strategy).
2. A multi-party parliamentary system is not the solution: Our twin party sham is(?!)
Wrong. It may be difficult to set and maintain a parliamentary coalition in multi party parliament, but at least some of parties do follow their clearly defined fixed platforms. The voice and goals of such parties are always heard, so they keep the critical issues in a public focus. For example, in the Netherlands the MP Geert Wilders and his party openly denounce islam as an evil which must have no place in their nation. On the contrary, in the US no party and no Congressman dares even to whisper the truth like this (or other such tabooed issues).
In the American twin party duopoly, each of them plays a role of a coalition so vague, and the "tent so wide", that adherence to any fixed values is discouraged in order to not displease anybody in the opposition, or those sitting on the fence (and on the top). Such a wide coalition is lead by spineless crooks anchored to nothing (but their bosses and sponsors), and not even formally competing against the opposite party (both owned by the same clique). Both "parties" just drift into the same direction, set by their "progressive" owners.
Worse: Such spineless "parties" present an ideal environment for being controlled and manipulated by the owners, including the New World Order clique (NWO). Not only is this environment ideal for suppressing the most crucial issues . Due to this environment the crucial issues were removed from circulation entirely, creating rather a paradoxical situation. The freedom of speech still exists, but is not used: Voluntarily not used. Instead, we have a "freedom from speech": The freedom from speech about everything that displeases the "progressives". These are combined effects of the idiocy of American political system, and how they work for the NWO and other enemies of America. Still not convinced? Here is what one of the NWO insiders Carroll Quigley had to say in his 1966 book "Tragedy and Hope":
"... The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method ... Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but WILL STILL PURSUE, with new vigor, approximately the SAME BASIC POLICIES." (See more here). ▲
That said, now (in 2014) it is not a first priority to change the mode of operation of the Congress: The first priority is to fully expose the Congress by making the explosive truth ring so loud that it cleans the way for other things to come.
3. A "third" party and the third party's candidates only spoil the election(?)
Wrong. It is not a 3rd (or n-th) party that spoils the election: It is the degeneracy of American mentality and the electoral system which leaves more than 2 choices in the final election. In the electoral practice of other nations, voters choose among multiple contenders only during the primary election. If neither of them gained 51%, only 2 strongest candidates run in the final stage. Then the minority parties must decide whom to support (if anybody) not disrupting the majority consensus. ▲
Invented and historically entrenched, the logically controversial American tale of the 3rd party disruption served as a justification in support of the sham twin party system, or duopoly, both used by the ruling elite very successfully for suppressing and eliminating "unapproved" opposite points of views.
That said, now (in 2014) it is not a first priority to change the operation of elections: The first priority is to fully expose the illegitimacy of this governance, to make the explosive truth ring so loud that it cleans the way for other things to come.
All plurality of candidates must be resolved in the primary elections. In the final election there must be listed only two candidates (stopping that propaganda about a 3rd party spoilers). Ideally, a law must be changed, but even with the existing laws conscious parties which took 3rd and lower places in primaries, must advise their electorate to support only one of the two front runners. ▲
4. The parties are in place to facilitate elections of their candidates, nothing else (commented by some RC). The goal of any party is to win so that it will be possible to govern... We must sell our ideas without alienating too many voters such that we would lose... Hell, we do not even need parties and the nation would go on running...
Wrong! This is an invented, historically entrenched, and controversial American tale. The first goal of any party is to push its ideas, or at least to keep them on the surface being loud and proud: In order at least to preserve them — no matter whom you alienate! Caring about not alienating anybody ends up with suppressions of free speech, de facto one party, and no opposition — the despicable state of affairs we are in now!
This statement twists the concept of a political party in order to justify the deficiency of existing American "electoral practices and political campaigns" designed by NWO and ruling elite. An electoral activity for winning of party's candidates must be only a final conclusive step of many others efforts listed below such as:
Reducing a party
only the last item facilitates for the ruling elite their task of
parties at bay; Facilitates suppression of the free speech while
formally allowed; And facilitates to rule smoothly despite the formally
existing freedom of speech. ▲
5. What is a technology of neutering the freedom of speech in the West? How and why did such a technology emerge in the West despite laying in its foundation?
First, neutering or rude suppression of the freedom of speech was a characteristic of the post-Stalinist USSR indeed. It was then in the 1980s that a great Soviet satirist Michael Zhvanetskiy ironically uttered the following variation of the famous Socratic credo: There are topics for which a discussion is ... HARMFUL!
As the West got gradually consumed by the Marxist, leftist, and progressive infection, just like the former slogans of Soviets, each of the progressive's mantras could not withstand scrutiny of any honest discussion. Therefore the Western rulers have elaborated a "technology" for elimination of the "difficult topics" from the public discussion entirely: The "technology" of freedom from speech. It is based on the following two methods:
order to "voluntarily" discourage people from exercising their
free speech rights, they make them to refrain from whispering out
which displeases progressives by a "soft intimidation" such as
threats of losing the job and other repercussions, so that the freedom
speech still exists, but is "voluntarily" unused. A euphemism
"political correctness" and discussion stoppers like
"bigot", "racist", "homophobe", "islamophobe"
comprise an arsenal of such soft intimidation (after which the less
like firing from a job follow).
As so far it is still impossible to kill the freedom of speech in America completely, the rulers elaborated a habit of ignoring any effects of still leaking free speech. A truth can find its way on the surface through a concrete of silencing, yet instead of being picked up by other agencies and become widely discussed, this truth remains completely ignored, or marginalized and ridiculed, taking no effect at all, as though in a parallel universe. All and any effect of such undesired truth is neutered, so that rulers just go on with their business as usual. ▲
which a discussion is ... harmful.
6. How come that the "Freedom of
turned into "freedom from speech" and no opposition in the
(former) "land of the free"?
Such a state was achieved in a more than 100 years long process due to cumulative effects of various factors. To mention just a few, the freedom of expression is never really "free", always depending on support of those who have means. Thus the uniformity in minds of the rich and powerful and of all business owners translates into the uniformity of the media and into the totalitarian state in general. In particular, the invented American tale of the 3rd party disruption and the "advantages" of the twin party sham greatly contributed to suppression and elimination of all points of views except those approved from above, which otherwise could not withstand the scrutiny of any honest discussion. The freedom of speech in the Internet and in marginal media still exists, however the existing political machine is designed in such a way, that such remnants of free speech take no effect. Free speech exists, but is made irrelevant. The ruling elite has learned to co-exist with such occasional squeaks of the truth. That's an "art" of coexistence with freedom of speech while neutralizing and ignoring it, developed in this nation (and in the West) during the last 100 years.
What good is free-speech right if you voluntarily refrain from using it? Thus in the idiotic political system of America not one party even attempts to speak out the truth, and not one truly opposition party even exists (except the Judeo-Christian America)! Not one even tries to utilize still existing freedom of speech for keeping the truth at least on the surface and for propagating own ideas.
What good is free-speech right if even when you utter your truth, it is ignored as if dog's barking? After all, it's merely your "opinion" - and this is America, you know, and everyone is entitled to one's "opinion" - the truth be damned...
This is another idiotic tradition to merely ignore any "controversial" truth which did somehow make it on the surface. Instead of engaging in a discussion and addressing "controversial" issues, those issues are merely ignored.
The "Land of the free" now has reached the stage of voluntary renouncing the freedom of speech and voluntary not having any opposition! This is akin an era of darkness of humanity again.
That is why the Judeo-Christian America is a party of straight speech. We do not fear to be called bigots, blamed in any kind of "phobia", or to be "full of hate" (for there is a time for everything... And this time is now). ▲
7. How can America overcome its intrinsic disadvantage and return to the founding principles (if ever)?
America (and the Free world in general) have an intrinsic disadvantage vs. any ruthless dictatorships such as the Soviet (Chinese, North Korean), or islamic nations. The USSR had a "luxury" of plotting demise of the West for decades, having no inside opposition and capable of redirecting the immense recourses into this goal. So did also Islam empowered with the oil money in 20th century.
The Soviets or Islam did have the strategy for decades or centuries ahead, and they implement their strategies very consistently without any internal resistance. On the contrary, in the West there always are too many conflicting interests and dirty hands on the rudder, with no strategy longer than the election cycle. This asymmetry alone near dooms the West, so more that these dirty hands on the rudder get bribed and do bidding for the enemy as though it were their regular job (see "American Betrayal" by Diana West).
Perhaps the only advantage of America and its antidote against such inroads of the enemy was the freedom of speech and the moral and religious people of America (as John Adams implied). However, the Freedom of speech was neutralized and turned into the Freedom from speech (by artfully exploiting the degeneracy of the American twin party sham), while the "moral and religious people" were converted into their opposite. Therefore the first step on the way of recovery must be to restore the practice of speaking out the truth; To restore open discussions of all issues of survival (because the progressive dogmas and talking points cannot withstand a scrutiny of free polemics). That is why we need this party and other parties whose operation mode is speaking out — and therefore spreading the truth, and fighting for realization of their Platforms (rather than merely placating dubious electorates). ▲
8. Under current conditions of "duopoly"1), the small (so called "third") parties are doomed to be merely "place holders". How can they make any difference ever?
Under "normal" conditions of business as usual and the deeply rooted duopoly (the monopoly of the twin party sham), the fat and brain dead American people would never seek or switch to anything else. However now (2015) it is not a situation of business as usual! For 6 shameful years America is having a UFO (Unidentified Foreign Operative) in the White House. As shameful and tragic as it is, this UFO usurpation also gives a unique opportunity to create a huge wave of indignation which sweeps away the criminal duopoly and gives a steep rise for the emergency party(s) which would create this wave and ride on it. As one commentator properly noted, migrate away from GOP and make them a "small party"!
That is why those of the small parties which shun of the ineligibility issue not only are doomed to be merely place holders, but they are also traitors of the Constitution as well. ▲
9. What is a "Political correctness"?
"Political correctness" is a concept invented in and unique to the (former) Free world only. This concept in itself is a euphemism (sweetening pill) for "voluntary self censorship" based either on sincere convictions of an indoctrinated person, or on his discomfort of being out of the "main stream".
The technology of "Political correctness" was invented by the NWO ideologues at least 100 years ago. The essence of "Political correctness" is in neutralizing the free speech and turning the nations with "freedom of speech" into nations with "freedom from speech". Thus, despite the formal existence of freedom of speech, the elite rules completely ignoring and dismissing any opposition views as though there were none.
As a result, the media and institutions of the Free world became no less totalitarian than those in the Evil Empire of the USSR, however with an important difference. Unlike in the Soviets, the Western totalitarianism is caused exclusively by general misery and baseness of the human material of the West. People like Academician Sakharov, Elena Bonnar, dissidents chaining themselves for a 5 minute message of truth until grabbed by KGB — are impossible in this nation of eunuchs, turned into a null and void entity under a UFO - Unidentified Foreign Operative; The nation still having the 1st and 2nd Amendments, yet both unused. ▲
14. There is no such faith called Judeo-Christianity.
True, Christianity and Judaism are different (though related) faiths
and our title does not presume as though they are joined into one
title merely refers to the national
identity of our Judeo-Christian nation. ▲
15. Does this party appeal only to religious people (practicing Christians and Jews)?
The party appeals to all people which acknowledge the faith and mindset
Founding Fathers, i.e. to the people recognizing Judaism or
Christianity at least
as a pledge of allegiance to our Constitution and to our national
What they believe in their hearts and how they practice their beliefs
between them and God. However atheist
whiners need some other party (and some other nation)! See also here.
Treason! Pushed by the NWO and their main organ – the UN with its "replacement migration" plan (sounding as oxymoron in itself!), and pushed also by the rich islamic nations. All US administrations of the recent decades were committing actions amounting to treason because…
It's three-fold treason!
is an unprecedented in history monstrous deconstruction plan, as the UN
have long sought to do away with the nation-state system of the West
replace it with a new system of global governance absent of any
their power. And the best way to destroy the nations of the West is to
millions upon millions of islamic piranhas – the
most antithetical immigrants one can think about.
In order to "normalize" this mega-treason and to "accustom" the Western citizenry to it, the decades long propaganda brainwashed the citizenry. The propaganda has convinced the citizenry as though the centuries proven formula nation X belongs to people X having their own ethnicity, faith, language, and culture, is "nationalistic" (i.e. bad) or worse: "racist". As though it is wrong to cherish one's national identity and preserve it for the posterity!
It's true, that all Western nations confront their
demographic death, because their
citizenry became too spoiled,
hedonic, prone to fornicate, but lazy to procreate.
migration" pretends to address this very real problem of the demographic death, but how?
No, their agitators do not call the Western
citizenry to return to the traditional
family values, to raise more kids and pass to them what the nation had
inherited from the ancestors! The agitators agree and wish that the Westerners willingly die out, while their old
borders be refilled with new arrivals of whoever in the world (providing that "whoever" are muslims)! The
agitators quite seriously
the left-wing prime minister of Canada has proudly announced, "There is no core identity, no mainstream
in Canada... – the first post-national (!) state".
Even more shockingly, the same became true now for many traditionally
mono-ethnic and mono-religious nations of the Western Europe.
That's the scale of madness and suicide wish consuming the West. That's how millions of muslims got into former mono-ethnic nations such as Norway or Sweden! That's how they create more and more "no-go" zones, "no-go" towns, and finally "no-go" nations.
America must GET OUT OF THE UN IMMEDIATELY! However it's only the beginning. In the moment we already have 3100+ mosques, several islamic military camps (!) like Islamberg VA, uncounted numbers of mosques visitors, and the entire school, government, and military contaminated and sympathetic to islam. Will America wake up, ever?!
What will it take for the West to come to its senses and to completely rid of islam? It's anybody's guess... ▲
No. Whichever is in the 1st Amendment, it was intended and applies only to citizens of the US and absolutely not to foreigners. The judges and politicians referring to the 1st Amendment as though it prohibited any religious filters to the aspirants for immigration, deliberately distort the Constitution in favor of their treasonous agenda. Immigration policy of America (and of every nation) must be guided only by the national interests, the first of which is preserving the own national identity for the posterity. ▲
No. Though according to the First Amendment, the Federal government must not make any laws concerning religion (while the States can make such laws), the Founders meant only religious denomination practiced in the US and comprising our nation: i.e. various brands of Christianity and Judaism. The Founders therefore legislated, that the Feds must not impose a particular brand of Christianity or Judaism unto all states. The word "religion" therefore meant only those practiced in the States – the above mentioned brands of Christianity and Judaism, rather than any kind of cults or religion existing in the world. ▲
No. Due to the reasons explained in items 21, 22, the First Amendment neither applies to foreigners, nor does it apply to islam or other foreign cults or religions. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights which prevents imposing limitations or total ban of islam in America. ▲
No. These softening expressions on one
hand, just as specially
introduced amplifying expressions "islamist", "jihadist",
"radical islam", "extremist islam" on the other, are
propaganda inventions: Islamist = consistent muslim. It's a
trick to make you believe as though there existed "extremist islam"
and "not extremist", or "radical islam" and "not
radical". Numerous scholars have already explained that (no matter the
faction) there is only one islam: very radical indeed, as written in
koran and hadiths.
Just ask the strong Turkish guy Erdogan...
There are however two strategies in islam: Legal and Violent.
The Legal islam is more patient and tends to reach their goals legally via buying everything worth buying in the West.
Violent islam is impatient. It cannot wait and rushes to violence right now, embarrassing the strategists of the legal islam.
Should we confront and fight only violent islam being happy that their other branch merely owns us? Absolutely not. No islam belongs to America or the West. We must reclaim our national identity and rid of islam in our nation entirely. ▲
No. Both these terms apply to interrelation of individuals differing in race or ethnicity within a nation: not to interrelations between nations! Nations have been always presumed to cherish and maintain their particular ethnicity, race, faith, language, culture, and borders! It's a duty of every nation having any immigration to follow a policy of aversion to strangers or foreigners, because every nation is a free association of people of own kind, and it's their right and duty to preserve and maintain their own kind for posterity. Nations surely must be xenophobic and racist (if one wants to apply these terms to nations). ▲
There is a part of the Passover celebration (Haggadah) called Dayenu, which recites thanks to God for so many of His miracles made for freeing the Jews from slavery in Egypt. Following the pattern of Dayenu of Haggadah, here it is rephrased for the case of islam.
1) The term "duopoly" is borrowed from an article of Chuck Baldwin.