DEATH TO ALL SHARIAHS, BY WHATEVER LABEL!

 As propounded by nearly all Islamists, 'shariah' law is of the Devil.
That's right. You read that right.
Why do I say that? Simply this. As I contemplate those societies ruled by it, I notice that nearly everything in that code is directed towards keeping all the real power in the hands of a few males my age and older, including many of the young women.
Thus, a secondary aim of 'shariah' law is to keep the males between the ages of 18 and 25 from seizing what the older males have (mostly) stolen and divvying it among themselves, including and, perhaps, especially, the young women.
And to this end, they seek to outlaw music and, of all things, female laughter! Why? Because these might EXCITE the young males, who are such babies that they have NO self-control whatsoever! Of course, they are probably also jealous of the simple joy of life that such laughter can, and often does, betoken!
We who live in countries where more female flesh is seen ought to drive it into the heads and hearts of these diabolically-inspired male bipeds that we, not they, are the manlier ones: are we excited to the point of rape by bikini-ed women? For a preponderance of men here and elsewhere, the answer is a definite NO.
We, not they, are the ones who have learned (I admit, to varying extents) to control our hormones rather than be blown about by them!
I can hear a foaming reply from some of them, viz. "You have NO manly hormones in you; there is nothing you need resist! WE are the manliest; liquid fire runs through our veins!!"
I think the best answer to this and other such garbage is, "Ye-ah, dude. Whatever." Then, as they dance with foaming from their mouths, pass the popcorn and the iced tea. Then get ready for some serious conflict.
I say anyone and everyone living in any democracy who says democracy should be killed and shariah 'law' take its place ought to be immediately deported to a country so ruled! Then we'll all be quite happy, won't we?
Warning: we do have those here who seek to institute a 'Christian' version of shariah law. The best-known plan now goes by the name of Project 2025. Advocates of that can be deported to Russia, which is probably the closest thing to what they lust to do to us here.

TRIBES AND FAMILIES

More thoughts stringing themselves together. This particular string starts with why, in today's world, people leave their native countries to go and live elsewhere. As a general rule, people tend to leave places that feel as if they are 'closing in' on their inhabitants and seek out places with both more room to breathe and more secure ground under their feet. These two things are not contradictory, as some ignorant Randians might think, but rather complementary. For without the security afforded by a rule of law and some measure of popular participation in the making of those laws,  safety for one's life, limbs and goods becomes a horrifyingly chancy matter for an individual and her family.
People migrate to where they can breathe easier in terms of safety and/or can be better fed, clothed and sheltered than in the native lands. Or they migrate in pursuit of a particular ideal, whether it be making a new nation or resurrecting an old one. But I suspect such migration as that to be relatively rare.
In any case, for a society to be attractive to immigrants a rule of law, trusted and upheld by the large majority of its citizens, seems to be a prerequisite.
It follows that whatever evaporates or vitiates trust of that rule will, if unchecked, impoverish and re-tribalize a modern society. Such theft of trust re-converts a polyglot federation to a collection of mutually hostile and perpetually warring tribes. This includes all that discourages wide participation in politics and government and which discourages civil discussion of issues about which most of us feel pretty deeply. The so-called Republican party and the noise machine of Faux News, Rush Limburger and all his mimics are indescribably guilty, guilty, GUILTY of such discouragement and, to a dangerously snowballing extent, have been guilty of such discouragement for at least forty years and probably more. Their attempt to put themselves above the law and then to use the law as a club to beat all non-white non-straights-and-males down is a big part of this as well.
Jew-haters claim that Jews break up other 'tribes' while keeping their own intact. Intact? Just how intact are they, one can wonder, when there are probably above 100 million people on this globe with some ancestral connection to ancient Israel, yet who do not call themselves Jews, Israelites or even Hebrews?
The reason for why some remnant of the nation of ancient Israel still calls itself that is probably The Tetragrammaton, aka YHWH. Get it?
I can think of another nation whose beginning includes at least the partial abandonment of tribalism based on DNA, on the 'sib' which was the first political unit of most Teutonic tribes including the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. When those three tribes conquered and settled the greater part of Britain and began the stop-and-go of making it into something called 'England', many sibs were broken up. A man might be a resident of, say, Sussex while his brother or cousin lived many miles away in Essex. And so on. And so the basic societal unit changed from one based on DNA to one based on proximity, on shared residence. As settlements settled, DNA crept back as at least a partial determinant, but not necessarily the primary one.
That process was repeated as first Englishmen, then Dutchmen and, later, border English, Scots, and Scotch-Irish settled along the Atlantic seaboard.
In the last case, whole communities crossed the Pond and went west looking to grab land from the natives. It can be argued they never abandoned the sib or clan as the basic societal unit and thus remained at a more primitive stage of development than other colonial societies. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and those who agree with her, seem to underline this as they don't acknowledge anything but 'blood', aka DNA, as the maker of what they call 'families' but might better be called 'relational clusters'.
'Family', as Robert Frost wrote, is 'the place where they have to take you in', where they acknowledge you as 'one of us' although years might have gone by. But DNA ain't necessarily the determinant. I suggest the determinant is how much love we feel among our 'families'. If, when we're there, it's more a matter of compulsion of some kind (including 'family duty') than wanting or needing to be there--well, I will be bold and say this: that ain't no 'family'; just a common DNA, or, 'relational' cluster of bipeds! Most relational clusters at least attempt to be families, to give credit where it's due.
The extent to which that ideal is realized is certainly highly debatable.
Democrats seem to at least begin to understand that family is where we each feel safe and cared for in ways which we need and can best get there. Where we are built (back?) up and not torn down, but where we're also kindly called on our particular forms of b.s. 'Republicans' at least act as if they don't understand this and don't want to. It must be plain that the Democrats are the ones who are, in the best and broadest sense, the genuinely 'pro-family' party.