We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
The aim of Islamists is neither integration, defined as participating in and strengthening American constitutional government alongside other citizens, nor indifferentism, defined as withdrawing from participation in the wider society to form an insulated community. In other words, the aim of Islamists is not integration into our society, nor to isolate themselves within their own enclaves, but rather to energetically integrate America into Islamist culture. Far from a Muslim “Benedict Option,” the Islamist strategy is political and confrontational. Islamists divide the world into the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the House of War (Dar al-Harb). When Islamists build a mosque, they see it as sanctifying a hitherto unholy place, transforming it into the territory of Dar al-Islam.
The mosque and Islamic center are not a refuge to withdraw into prayer and worship, but an outpost in hostile territory, a stronghold to reform the surrounding world, and a place for chastising unscrupulous Muslims and driving out unbelievers. In Ruling in the Name of Allah, the Algerian writer Boualem Sansal explains how this duality shapes many Muslims’ perception of all of reality: “There is the world of Islam that must be protected and there is the world of evil in which war must be waged.”
As the memorandum indicates, this project extends beyond simple ethical reform or a largely invisible spiritual battle. The objective is spiritual AND temporal: to complete the total overhaul and reorganization of society, culture, business, commerce, finance, law, and government. This is why Islamists claim to offer “a civilizational alternative” to the West. They provide a comprehensive human association that is intended to challenge and replace other civilizations.
Informed by such an ambitious and wide-ranging project, Islamists oppose the American sense of nationhood and form of government and seek to replace constitutional and national governments with the global Islamic state.
Nathan Pinkoski
--James 2:12
GK Chesterton on adultery:
"The revolt against vows has been carried in our day even to the extent of a revolt against the typical vow of marriage. It is most amusing to listen to the opponents of marriage on this subject. They appear to imagine that the ideal of constancy was a yoke mysteriously imposed on mankind by the devil, instead of being, as it is, a yoke consistently imposed by all lovers on themselves. They have invented a phrase, a phrase that is a black and white contradiction in two words - ‘free-love' - as if a lover ever had been, or ever could be, free.
"It is the nature of love to bind itself, and the institution of marriage merely paid the average man the compliment of taking him at his word. Modern sages offer to the lover, with an ill-favored grin, the largest liberties and the fullest irresponsibility; but they do not respect him as the old Church respected him; they do not write his oath upon the heavens, as the record of his highest moment. ...
Opinion by Lau Vegys:
America's problems aren't fixable with patriotic sentiment. They're mathematical realities that don't care about your flag-waving.
The national debt recently hit $37 trillion. By 2033—the same year Social Security's trust fund runs dry—we're looking at debt exceeding $50 trillion. Interest payments alone will consume nearly half of all tax revenue.
At that point, the Federal Reserve will have no choice but to print tens of trillions of dollars to bail out the Treasury. The resulting inflation will make the early 1980s look like a picnic.
And of course, as I mentioned in a recent piece, whether it's $37 trillion now or $50 trillion in about eight years, the headline number is just the tip of the iceberg.
Add it all up—Medicare, Social Security, federal pensions, and other off-the-books promises—and the real financial hole the U.S. government faces is closer to $150 trillion. That’s nearly $1 million per taxpayer.
The Guardian reports that 15,000 Afghans were relocated to the UK in a secret scheme, while Breitbart reported that nearly 24,000 Afghans were brought in, with the British government earmarking £7 billion to secretly house and import them.
The UK taxpayer has no choice but to pay up, while government transparency was lacking.
Whether all these Afghans were vetted remains unknown. Given the reputation of the UK along with many Western countries, the vetting process for migrants is nearly nonexistent, and highly questionable in this case in particular.
Also, in the spring of 2023, while Rishi Sunak was prime minister and many UK military families had no heat or hot water, the government continued to host illegal migrants in plush hotels, at the cost to taxpayers of $8.5 million USD a day and rising. And while homelessness was up over 27% in Britain, illegal, mostly Muslim migrants from the Middle East and Africa, were royally served in those plush hotels. Now it comes to light that in...
