• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

THE CAMEL'S NOSE IS OFFICIALLY IN THE TENT IN MICHIGAN!!!

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,245
Reaction score
16
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
THE CAMEL'S NOSE IS OFFICIALLY IN THE TENT IN MICHIGAN!!!



Muslim men are allowed to have as many as 4 wives. Many Muslims have

immigrated into the U.S. And brought their 2-3-or 4 wives with them, but the

U.S. Does not allow multi marriages, so the man lists one wife as his, and

signs the other 2 or 3 up as extended family on welfare and other free

Government programs!



Michigan has the highest population of Muslims in the Unites States. When

President Obama took office, the United States paid several millions of

dollars to have a large number of Palestinians, (All Muslim), immigrated

here from Palestine. Why? I have no idea, do you! We don’t pay for other

persons to immigrate here, and I’m sure that some of those Muslims moved

into Michigan with the large current number of Muslims already established

there.



So now in Michigan when you call the Public Assistance office you are told

to “Press 1 for English. Press 2 for Spanish, or Press 3 for Arabic”!

Every time you add a new language to an American program it requires an

additional number of persons fluent in that language to process those

persons who refuse to learn English in order to live here at an additional

cost to the taxpayer! Why are we even allowing persons to immigrate here who

cannot provide for themselves, and putting them in our welfare system?



Press 3 for Arabic .

This is quite alarming!!! This seems to have happened clandestinely, for, as

far as I know, no public announcement, or opportunity to vote on this was

offered to the American people. They're just adopting an official stance,

and very likely using tax-payer money for it, in various capacities, without

public knowledge or approval.



The following link takes you into the State of Michigan Public Assistance

page, (as in Food Stamps etc). You won't have to scroll far before you see

the assistance-letters options for...(get this).....*English, Spanish, and

ARABIC !!!*

*

When did the ARABIC option sneak into our culture? Will we soon have to

listen to our governmental offices, stores, and other venues offer us the

option of "pressing 3 for ARABIC?"



Check it out for yourself.



http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124-5453_5527---,00.html
http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124-5453_5527---,00.html

*Please inform every red-blooded American you know, that this is happening.

It is outrageous! The camel's nose is literally now OFFICIALLY under the

tent! YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!!!
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
U.S. Does not allow multi marriages, so the man lists one wife as his, and

signs the other 2 or 3 up as extended family on welfare and other free

Government programs!

isn't this a tactic cults and Mormons are using to skirt the law?

Colorado City, Arizona has been the home for a notorious polygamist sect for more than 60 years.

The Short Creek polygamists brought in more men with their wives by pickup truck to their growing kingdom, which they called "The First City of the Millennium." A "charitable philanthropic trust'' was set up called the "United Effort Plan," which controlled much of their assets. But Short Creek was a burden to the welfare system of Arizona's Mohave County. Many polygamist women and children collected welfare and whatever was available through government relief.

The Mohave County attorney and the sheriff pressed charges against two polygamist leaders, who were sent to prison for two years. The FBI later raided Short Creek in 1944, and 15 more men were sent to prison in Utah. Nine of those men were later released because they signed a pledge to give up polygamy. But most simply broke that promise and returned to the practice shortly after their release.

The welfare problem became worse and Jesse Faulkner, a superior-court judge in Kingman, complained that there was a "taxpayer emergency'' regarding polygamist demands upon school facilities, even though they did not pay property taxes. Cattlemen were upset because the did pay grazing fees, which were allegedly used for polygamist schools.

Arizona Governor Howard Pyle hired private detectives to investigate Short Creek. Subsequently, on July 26, 1953 Pyle ordered a massive police raid. He said, "Here is a community...dedicated to the wicked theory that every maturing girl child should be forced into the bondage of multiple wifehood with men of all ages for the sole purpose of producing more children to be reared to become mere chattels."

Polygamist men from Short Creek were jailed in Kingman, while their plural wives children stayed behind. Arizona officials took days to sort through the families, determining who was related to whom. The LDS Church-owned Desert News supported this government action. But the raid became a public relations nightmare for Pyle, when people saw newsreels of children separated from their parents. The net result was only one year of probation for 23 polygamist men. But the negative publicity ironically helped Short Creek avoid interference from law enforcement for many years to come.

The FLDS Church then sought to eliminate any connection to the "Short Creek raid" by renaming their town Colorado City in Arizona and Hildale in Utah.

I have no problem with a person practicing his religion or a distorted view of his religion.. but for the life of me I can not understand how a government that can stop a school prayer, can't stop rampant abuse of taxpayer exempt status and welfare abuse?
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
4,716
Reaction score
0
Location
NW Panhandle Texas
I remember when this first come out.....those who were agains what was happening were told to PROVE it.....ok there is proof now. Is it still just helping out like spanish? Or a bigger issue?



psssttt yeah see how batshitcrazy I am.....I TOLD YOU SO
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
U.S. Does not allow multi marriages, so the man lists one wife as his, and

signs the other 2 or 3 up as extended family on welfare and other free

Government programs!

isn't this a tactic cults and Mormons are using to skirt the law?

Colorado City, Arizona has been the home for a notorious polygamist sect for more than 60 years.

The Short Creek polygamists brought in more men with their wives by pickup truck to their growing kingdom, which they called "The First City of the Millennium." A "charitable philanthropic trust'' was set up called the "United Effort Plan," which controlled much of their assets. But Short Creek was a burden to the welfare system of Arizona's Mohave County. Many polygamist women and children collected welfare and whatever was available through government relief.

The Mohave County attorney and the sheriff pressed charges against two polygamist leaders, who were sent to prison for two years. The FBI later raided Short Creek in 1944, and 15 more men were sent to prison in Utah. Nine of those men were later released because they signed a pledge to give up polygamy. But most simply broke that promise and returned to the practice shortly after their release.

The welfare problem became worse and Jesse Faulkner, a superior-court judge in Kingman, complained that there was a "taxpayer emergency'' regarding polygamist demands upon school facilities, even though they did not pay property taxes. Cattlemen were upset because the did pay grazing fees, which were allegedly used for polygamist schools.

Arizona Governor Howard Pyle hired private detectives to investigate Short Creek. Subsequently, on July 26, 1953 Pyle ordered a massive police raid. He said, "Here is a community...dedicated to the wicked theory that every maturing girl child should be forced into the bondage of multiple wifehood with men of all ages for the sole purpose of producing more children to be reared to become mere chattels."

Polygamist men from Short Creek were jailed in Kingman, while their plural wives children stayed behind. Arizona officials took days to sort through the families, determining who was related to whom. The LDS Church-owned Desert News supported this government action. But the raid became a public relations nightmare for Pyle, when people saw newsreels of children separated from their parents. The net result was only one year of probation for 23 polygamist men. But the negative publicity ironically helped Short Creek avoid interference from law enforcement for many years to come.

The FLDS Church then sought to eliminate any connection to the "Short Creek raid" by renaming their town Colorado City in Arizona and Hildale in Utah.

I have no problem with a person practicing his religion or a distorted view of his religion.. but for the life of me I can not understand how a government that can stop a school prayer, can't stop rampant abuse of taxpayer exempt status and welfare abuse?

Steve your Governor what about this.

is Christie slams fearmongering over Sharia law

By Chris Moody

Political Reporter

* Posts
* Email
* RSS

By Chris Moody | The Ticket – Thu, Aug 4, 2011

*
* tweet322
* Share29
* Email
* Print

New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie defended his decision to nominate a Muslim judge to the state Superior Court against conservative critics who warned that the new judge will implement Sharia law. The notoriously blunt-spoken Christie calling their fears "crap" and "crazy."

The appointee, Sohail Mohammed, is an American attorney who offered legal aid to New Jersey residents who were suspected after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but were later found innocent of any crimes.

Opponents of Mohammed's nomination have issued warnings, with no evidence, that Christie's nominee, if approved, would base his rulings on Islamic law. Christie was having none of it.

"Sharia law has nothing to do with this at all. It's crazy. It's crazy," Christie said at a press conference Wednesday. "The guy's an American citizen who has been an admitted lawyer to practice in the state of New Jersey, swearing an oath to uphold the laws of New Jersey, the constitution of the state of New Jersey, and the Constitution of the United States of America . . . .This Sharia law business is crap. It's just crazy. And I'm tired of dealing with the crazies."

You can watch the exchange after the jump:

Several Republican presidential candidates have warned of a Muslim plot to force American courts to rule by the religious code. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum recently called it "an existential threat" to the United States; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty shut down a program in his state that would allow practicing Muslims to pay for mortgages without violating their religious teachings against borrowing with interest; businessman Herman Cain said he would require Muslims to take an extra loyalty oath to serve in his administration; and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for a federal law to ban Sharia from U.S. courts.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
hurleyjd said:
Steve your Governor what about this.

is Christie slams fearmongering over Sharia law

By Chris Moody

New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie defended his decision to nominate a Muslim judge to the state Superior Court against conservative critics who warned that the new judge will implement Sharia law. The notoriously blunt-spoken Christie calling their fears "crap" and "crazy."

The appointee, Sohail Mohammed, is an American attorney who offered legal aid to New Jersey residents who were suspected after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but were later found innocent of any crimes.

Opponents of Mohammed's nomination have issued warnings, with no evidence, that Christie's nominee, if approved, would base his rulings on Islamic law. Christie was having none of it.

"Sharia law has nothing to do with this at all. It's crazy. It's crazy," Christie said at a press conference Wednesday. "The guy's an American citizen who has been an admitted lawyer to practice in the state of New Jersey, swearing an oath to uphold the laws of New Jersey, the constitution of the state of New Jersey, and the Constitution of the United States of America . . . .This Sharia law business is crap. It's just crazy. And I'm tired of dealing with the crazies."

Several Republican presidential candidates have warned of a Muslim plot to force American courts to rule by the religious code. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum recently called it "an existential threat" to the United States; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty shut down a program in his state that would allow practicing Muslims to pay for mortgages without violating their religious teachings against borrowing with interest; businessman Herman Cain said he would require Muslims to take an extra loyalty oath to serve in his administration; and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for a federal law to ban Sharia from U.S. courts.

if you have noticed EVERY time a person has praised Christy or said he should run for President, I warned them that Christy is NOT the person the media is making him out to be..

Christy is what you would call a RINO, only with a bad temper and a vengeful streak..

Christy patterned his campaign after the candidate (Steven M. Lonegan, former mayor of Bogota) he barely beat in the primaries.. and is patterning his political career after Jon Corzine the wealthy liberal he beat in the general..

he only took on the teachers union because they upset him and made him look bad..

if Lonagan was running for President I would be working on his campaign today..

Do not trust Christy he is the media's favorite pick..
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Hurley,

Would you be okay with Sharia law being used to base decisions in our court system?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
okfarmer said:
Hurley,

Would you be okay with Sharia law being used to base decisions in our court system?

No I would not and it is not going to happen as long as we are the United States. Do you think it will happen here in our lifetime.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
hurleyjd said:
okfarmer said:
Hurley,

Would you be okay with Sharia law being used to base decisions in our court system?

No I would not and it is not going to happen as long as we are the United States. Do you think it will happen here in our lifetime.

I would have never thought it could happen in our country.. but..

it has already happened in 15 or 16 lower court rulings and a dozen appeals court rulings.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.

The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.

he facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.

"These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded."

Key Findings:At the trial court level,
15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.

At the appellate Court level:
12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct “Categories” of dispute: 21 cases dealt with “Shariah Marriage Law”; 17 cases involved “Child Custody”; 5 dealt with “Shariah Contract Law”; 3 dealt with general “Shariah Doctrine”; 2 were concerned with “Shariah Property Law”; 1 dealt with “Due Process/Equal Protection” and 1 dealt with the combined “Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody.”

• The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Crime & Courts
Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling

A New Jersey family court judge's decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife.

According to the court record, the man's wife -- a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks -

"Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."

In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."

The woman's lawyer, Jennifer Donnelly of New Jersey Legal Services, told FoxNews.com that Charles' ruling should add to the case for a proposed Oklahoma law, which will be on the ballot in November, which would ban judges from considering "international law or Shariah Law" in their rulings.

"Those who don't want the bill to pass say, 'there's really no need for it because why would a judge walk down that road of religion?'" Donnelly said.

The Appeals Court ruling notes, "The imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband's sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere.

"This is a ruling that is strictly in line with Islamic law, which does indeed declare that a wife may not refuse her husband sex under virtually any circumstances," Spencer said. "The only legal framework that would not consider marital rape to be sexual assault is Shariah."





In a 2003 case, for instance, a Texas district court ruled that the private "Texas Islamic Court" should decide the amount a husband owed his wife in a divorce proceeding -- because when they got married, they had signed a contract specifying that was what they wanted.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
In Tampa Florida, a dispute arose over who controls the funds in a mosque received in 2008 from an eminent domain proceeding. Former trustees of the mosque are claiming in a Florida court that they have the right to the funds.

Current mosque leaders are disputing that claim, and want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly. The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to Islamic Sharia law. On March 3, 2011 The judge in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law, [Sharia law], pursuant to the Quran.”
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
this from a legal expert..

It is true that some people have signed contracts or similar agreements agreeing to resolve their disputes under Sharia law, and American law generally requires these agreements to be honored, but that is simply due to the fact that American law typically allows people to be bound by their own word. American contract law would also allow people to agree to be bound by the laws of ancient Rome or by the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition rules.

from what he is saying is that if you enter into a contract you are bound to the terms of the contract..

well from what I learned in contract law.. the contract must first be legal to be binding..

second it can not be under duress.. in other words both parties must be in "FULL" agreement.. no coercion,.. or undue pressure to enter the contract.

and both parties must be able to consent. and of legal age (over 18 generally)

so now this "Legal expert" wants you to believe that a Islamic marriage contract is a legal contract?

and secondly if the wife wants out,... tough, she is bound by the contract.. and that we routinely honor foreign contracts in the US.

for starters.. many/most almost all foreign islamic marriages are arranged.. so much for consent, legal age, full agreement..

I guess that about takes care of that..













after reading his credentials.. and his opinion
Ian Millhiser is a Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and a blogger on judicial and constitutional issues for ThinkProgress.org. He received a B.A. in Philosophy from Kenyon College and a J.D., magna cum laude, from Duke University. Ian clerked for Judge Eric L. Clay of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and has worked as an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center’s Federal Rights Project, as Assistant Director for Communications with the American Constitution Society, and as a Teach For America teacher in the Mississippi Delta. His writings have appeared in a diversity of legal and mainstream publications, including the Guardian, the American Prospect and the Duke Law Journal; and he has been a guest on CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English, Fox Business and many radio shows.
one could wonder how he passed the bar?
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
hurleyjd said:
okfarmer said:
Hurley,

Would you be okay with Sharia law being used to base decisions in our court system?

No I would not and it is not going to happen as long as we are the United States. Do you think it will happen here in our lifetime.

Steve answered this well. To add to it, if Sharia law was not a goal of many Muslims then why are they fighting Oklahoma's decision to ban its use in Oklahoma courts? Alot of money being spent for nothing??? I don't think so.

Also, look at Europe and what has happened in the courts there. It is a big deal.
 

tumbleweed_texn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
Among the sagebrush and greasewood.
It's obvious that muslims are wanting to change our legal system to suit themselves just as every other special interest group is trying to. What I cant figure out is why our government is paying to ship them here. I know why the muslims want to come. Their koran teaches them to kill the infadels or make slaves of them. They cant kill us all, but if the koolaid drinkin, rainbow fartin crowd have their way, we'll all be slaves.

Note to our leaders: Quit shipping them over here. We brought in slaves for a couple of hundred years. Now we are reaping what we've sowed. During we WW 2 and Korea we eased immigration restrictions to help with the agricultural labor shortage. Now we are reaping what we have sowed. WE HAVE HAD ALL OF THE HELP FROM WASHINGTON THAT WE CAN STAND. QUIT! ! ! AMERICA IS FULL! ! !

Fix your mess before you do anything else! ! !
 

Latest posts

Top