Profile

Cover photo
Stephen Edwards
107 followers|86,889 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideosReviews

Stream

Stephen Edwards

Shared publicly  - 
 
I have a new video up guys. Check it out!
1
Add a comment...

Stephen Edwards

Shared publicly  - 
 
IMPEACH ERIC HOLDER. THROW HIM OUT OF OFFICE! REMEMBER THE DEATH OF BORDER PATROL AGENT BRIAN TERRY! TERRY'S DEATH IS THE RESULT OF HOLDER'S DEADLY FAST AND FURIOUS GUN RUNNING SCHEME! BRIAN TERRY IS AMONG THE OF HUNDREDS OF DEAD INNOCENTS!
1
Add a comment...

Stephen Edwards

Shared publicly  - 
 
Can you believe this shit? California has the most corrupt government in the United States. CORRUPTION LEAKS FROM THE WALLS OF THE CA GOV FASTER THAN THE RADIATION LEAKING FROM FUKUSHIMA.


http://m.teaparty.org/california-open-facilities-illegal-aliens-drivers-licenses-37862/

California to open facilities for ONLY illegal aliens’ driver’s licenses


‘This is the stepping-stone to state level amnesty’

(Daily Caller) – The California Department of Motor Vehicles is setting up new facilities to process driver’s license applications for illegal immigrants alone.

Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill, AB 60, which will allow illegal immigrants to obtain the documents beginning Jan. 1, 2015.

The bill was signed along with a number of others laws seen as favorable to undocumented immigrants.

FAX BLAST SPECIAL: NO AMNESTY for Illegals!

As part of the driver’s license application process, immigrants will have to acknowledge that they are undocumented. But AB 60 protects applicants from criminal prosecution.

The measure will provide an avenue for the state’s three to four million undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses, which advocates have said are necessary in order for the immigrants to get to and from work. The law is expected to allow up to 1.4 million undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses.

To accommodate that expected influx of new drivers, the state’s DMV is setting up five facilities throughout California. The facilities will be opened in the areas of San Jose, the South Central Coast, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego, DMV spokewoman Jessica Gonzalez told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“This is the stepping-stone to state level amnesty,” Jon Feere, legal policy analyst at the Center of Immigration Studies, told TheDCNF.

Feere noted that former governor Gray Davis was recalled in 2003 after signing into law a bill similar to AB 60.

“California is the state that gave us Ronald Reagan. Now it gives us illegal alien lawyers with law licenses and illegal alien drivers with driver’s licenses,” Feere said.

Despite the push, a majority of U.S. and California voters oppose providing undocumented immigrants with driver’s licenses.

According to a Rasmussen poll taken in the wake of the passage of AB 60, 68 percent of likely American voters oppose their state giving undocumented immigrants driver’s licenses.

A poll conducted by Zogby Analytics of likely California voters found that 59 percent agreed with the statement “State and local governments should adopt policies that discourage illegal immigrants from settling in California.”

And 53 percent of respondents to the poll said that they would support a ballot measure that limited driver’s licenses to legal U.S. residents only.

Feere also pushed back on the idea that the driver’s licenses are necessary in order to help immigrants travel to and from work.

“The advocates who argue that licenses are necessary to help illegal aliens to get to jobs are by definition condoning illegal employment practices,” said Feere, noting that federal law prohibits the hiring of illegal immigrants.

As for the new processing centers, Feere says that they’re an unnecessary cost.

“It’s another cost that California taxpayers are going to be paying for, simply because the federal government has not done its job on illegal immigration and because Sacramento is welcoming illegal immigrants into the state,” he said.

California’s DMV has not yet finalized their plans for the new facilities or for which documents the new applicants will have to provide.

“DMV is still in the process of deciding what documents will be acceptable,” the DMV’s Gonzalez told TheDCNF.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/27/california-to-open-facilities-for-only-illegal-immigrants-drivers-licenses/
1
Add a comment...

Stephen Edwards

Shared publicly  - 
 
Hand over your children to the state or face fines and/or imprisonment. The government says your children belong to the state and not to you. This is sickening.


http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/03/now-feds-can-order-any-family-to-violate-religious-beliefs/

NOW FEDS CAN ORDER ANY FAMILY TO VIOLATE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS



An administrative decision by the Department of Homeland Security means members of a German homeschool family whose grant of asylum in the U.S. later was withdrawn will not be returned to face the persecution homeschoolers face in Germany.

But advocates for homeschooling are warning that the underlying legal precedent in the Romeike family’s case suggests that the government always knows best what education is appropriate for children and can require them to attend a school that violates their religious beliefs.

The warning comes from Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, which represented the family.

The Romeikes were facing massive punishment, including fines, jail time and loss of custody of their children, had they remained in Germany and continued homeschooling. They made the choice because of teaching in public schools on homosexuality, abortion and other issues that violated the family’s Christian faith.

An appeals court complied with the Obama administration’s request to withdraw the granting of asylum, and the Supreme Court recently left the decision undisturbed.

Last week, however, the DHS said it would put the case on a deferred status under which the family would be able to remain in the United States indefinitely.

While that is a victory for the Romeikes, Farris warned that Americans need to be watching what actually was determined in the courts.

In a statement posted on HSLDA’s website, Farris said “the dangers latent in this case must be understood, combated and reversed.”

“Once these dangerous ideas are unmasked, it becomes apparent that they pose real threats to the principles of freedom that virtually all Americans would have believed were solidly established.”

Farris noted the government “contended that forcing a parent to have their children attend a school that violates their religious beliefs does not offend a conviction that one should not be required to change.”

“Hence, the first dangerous rule to emerge from the Romeike case is that governments may order children to attend schools that violate the family’s religious beliefs. It was not a direct ruling in this case … but the conclusion is present just the same,” he said.

He said the arguments in support of that conclusion are equally alarming.

The Obama administration relied on a decision by Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court in the American case.

That foreign court found: “The general public has a justified interest in counteracting the development of religiously or philosophically motivated ‘parallel societies’ and in integrating minorities in this area. Integration does not only require that the majority of the population does not exclude religious or ideological minorities, but, in fact, that these minorities do not segregate themselves and that they do not close themselves off to a dialogue with dissenters and people of other beliefs. Dialogue with such minorities is an enrichment for an open pluralistic society. The learning and practicing of this in the sense of experienced tolerance is an important lesson right from the elementary school stage. The presence of a broad spectrum of convictions in a classroom can sustainably develop the ability of all pupils in being tolerant and exercising the dialogue that is a basic requirement of democratic decision-making process.”

Farris said the U.S. government argued the German court was simply trying to promote tolerance.

“Tolerance? Really? The aberrational German theory of ‘tolerance’ was clearly demonstrated by the facts in the record,” Farris said. “Another German appeals court held that it is appropriate to use the family courts to seek ‘the removal of the right [of parents] to determine the residence of the children and to decide on the children’s education.’ The same court held that it is ‘completely acceptable’ for courts to ‘enforce the handover of the children, by force if necessary and by means of entering and searching the parental home.’”

The German courts said physical force, including such components as SWAT teams with equipment to smash down doors on homes, was needed to prevent “the damage to the children, which is occurring through the continued exclusive teaching of the children of [sic] the mother at home,’” the HSLDA analysis noted.

“The court conceded that it was not concerned with academic issues – homeschooling could successfully transmit knowledge. It was the philosophical development of children that was at issue. The German court believed that it was ‘damaging’ to children to be taught only the philosophy of their mother,” said HSLDA.

Farris explained that the “controlling legal rule” in the case “is that persecution is proven when a government acts against a person either for an immutable characteristic or for a reason that one should not be required to change.”

Regarding homeschooling, the case sends the message that government is allowed to force parents to change their beliefs, he said.

The Obama Justice Department, on the issue, echoed George Washington University Law Professor Catherine Ross, Farris wrote.

Ross said: “In order for the norm of tolerance to survive across generations, society need not and should not tolerate the inculcation of absolutist views that undermine toleration of difference. Respect for difference should not be confused with approval for approaches that would splinter us into countless warring groups. Hence an argument that tolerance for diverse views and values is a foundational principle does not conflict with the notion that the state can and should limit the ability of intolerant homeschoolers to inculcate hostility to difference in their children – at least during the portion of the day they claim to devote to satisfying the compulsory schooling requirement.”

Farris disputed her argument, contending history and logic prove “tolerance will never be achieved by a government which is intolerant of religious minorities.”

“The long-term concern for American homeschoolers arising from the Romeike case is obvious,” he wrote. “If our government contends that Germany did not violate the principles of religious freedom when it banned homeschooling in order to gain philosophical control over children, then it implies that it would not violate religious freedom or parental rights if the United States decided to ban homeschooling for the same purpose. After all, we would simply be promoting tolerance and pluralism.”

He said what really is needed is a Parental Rights Amendment, which would tell government “to not interfere with our rights to raise our children.”

The alarm Farris expressed echoed that of several WND columnists.

Ambassador Alan Keyes wrote: “It’s telling that Obama and Holder held out against the Romeike family’s plea for asylum until, with the passive-aggressive support of the U.S. Supreme Court, they had established a legal precedent upholding the administration’s lawless view that an unalienable right of the natural family (rooted in the parents’ obligation conscientiously to care for the upbringing of their children) is a ‘mutable choice’ government is not bound to respect.”

WND Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah wrote that people need to understand “the Romeikes are victims of a Nazi-era law that has never been overturned.”

“The 1938 law passed under the leadership of Adolf Hitler eliminated exemptions that would provide an open door for homeschoolers under the nation’s compulsory education laws.”

It was in 1937 when Hitler himself said: “The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

WND reported when the DHS decision was announced that supporters of the family still believed an act of Congress might be needed to establish family rights again.
1
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
107 people
Brendan Conway's profile photo
Shane Cullen's profile photo
Kelly McCullough's profile photo

Stephen Edwards

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Urgent: Is it time to fire Eric Holder? Vote Now in Urgent Poll http://bit.ly/1gr0vOC
1
Add a comment...

Stephen Edwards

Shared publicly  - 
 
From http://www.bradycampaign.org/?q=2013-state-scorecard. "State gun laws fill enormous gaps that exist in our nation’s federal laws, and help to reduce gun violence and keep citizens safe. In part because these laws help to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and aid law enforcement in solving gun crimes, many of the states with the strongest gun laws also have the lowest gun death rates."
What a bunch of bullshit that propaganda is. xD States with a C or lower have more gun freedoms and LOWER gun crimes. So STFU you stupid, gun grabbing, freedom haters. Your fake data and botched charts is a weak narrative for stricter gun laws. The Sandy Hook massacre was supported by the government to take away the guns that lie in the hands of Constitutionally protected citizens. 2nd amendment for life!!!
1
Add a comment...
 
WHAT THE FUCK YOUTUBE?! PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY ONE OF ALEX JONES' CHANNELS, 'PROJECT: LIBERTY DEFINED' HAS BEEN SUSPENDED! INFOWARS - THERE IS A WAR FOR YOUR MIND!
2
Greg Eldefonso's profile photo
 
The war of the gods is in your mind.
Add a comment...
 
Listen to Alex Jones!!!
The Alex Jones Show for Thursday, March 13th, 2014.
1
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
107 people
Brendan Conway's profile photo
Shane Cullen's profile photo
Kelly McCullough's profile photo
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Story
Tagline
I should type a brief description of me...
Their food and atmosphere is truly extraordinary.
Public - 3 months ago
reviewed 3 months ago
Public - 8 months ago
reviewed 8 months ago
2 reviews
Map
Map
Map