The Hypocricy of the Obama Cabal is blatant towards Christianity.

USA Trying to Deport Christian Homeschooling Family Knowing They Face Persecution

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike are Christians and the parents of six children.  When their kids attended the German public schools, they were bullied and harassed because of being Christians.  The parents began looking into the schools and what their kids were being taught.  They found a number of objectionable and inappropriate things in the textbooks that they didn’t want their kids learning.
They strongly believed that their children would receive a better education grounded in biblical principles by being schooled at home rather than having their children indoctrinated by the German schools.  Uwe said:

“We knew that homeschooling would not be an easy journey.”

However, the German government had made homeschooling illegal and actively pursued Christian families who tried to homeschool their children.  In 2008, the Romeike family was ripped apart when government officials stepped in and forcibly removed the kids from the home.  The parents were fined thousands of euros.
Their only hope was to seek political asylum in a country that allowed Christians to homeschool, so they applied to the US for asylum.  A US immigration judge ruled in 2010 that the family did face persecution from the German government and granted the Romeike family political asylum.  The family moved and settled in Tennessee.
Remember at last month when President Obama issued his Religious Freedom Day proclamation?  He said:

“Today, we also remember that religious liberty is not just an American right; it is a universal human right to be protected here at home and across the globe. This freedom is an essential part of human dignity, and without it our world cannot know lasting peace.”
“As we observe Religious Freedom Day, let us remember the legacy of faith and independence we have inherited, and let us honor it by forever upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution…”

Here’s how he lives up to his statement.
US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Homeland Security are fighting the political asylum status.  Holder claims that the family’s fundamental rights have not been violated by Germany’s law forbidding families from homeschooling.  They have asked the courts to withdraw the family’s political asylum and have them deported back to Germany.
The Home School legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is representing the Romeikes family and fighting to have them stay in the US.  They say that:

“The U.S. law of asylum allows a refugee to stay in the United States permanently if he can show that he is being persecuted for one of several specific reasons. Among these are persecution for religious reasons and persecution of a ‘particular social group.’”
“In most asylum cases, there is some guesswork necessary to figure out the government’s true motive—but not in this case. The Supreme Court of Germany declared that the purpose of the German ban on homeschooling was to ‘counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies.’”
“This sounds elegant, perhaps, but at its core it is a frightening concept. This means that the German government wants to prohibit people who think differently from the government (on religious or philosophical grounds) from growing and developing into a force in society.”
“The Romeikes’ case is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case for the government is officially in the name of the Attorney General of the United States. The case is called Romeike v. Holder. Thus, the brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice is filed on behalf of the attorney general himself—although we can be reasonably certain he has not personally read it. Nonetheless, it is a statement of the position of our government at a very high level.”
“We argued that Germany is a party to many human rights treaties that contain specific provisions that protect the right of parents to provide an education that is different from the government schools. Parents have the explicit right to give their children an education according to their own philosophy.”
“While the United States government argued many things in their brief, there are three specific arguments that you should know about.”
“First, they argued that there was no violation of anyone’s protected rights in a law that entirely bans homeschooling. There would only be a problem if Germany banned homeschooling for some but permitted it for others.”
“A second argument is revealing. The U.S. government contended that the Romeikes’ case failed to show that there was any discrimination based on religion because, among other reasons, the Romeikes did not prove that all homeschoolers were religious, and that not all Christians believed they had to homeschool.”
“This argument demonstrates another form of dangerous “group think” by our own government. The central problem here is that the U.S. government does not understand that religious freedom is an individual right. One need not be a part of any church or other religious group to be able to make a religious freedom claim. Specifically, one doesn’t have to follow the dictates of a church to claim religious freedom—one should be able to follow the dictates of God Himself.”
“One final argument from Romeikes deserves our attention. One of the grounds for asylum is if persecution is aimed at a “particular social group.” The definition of a “particular social group” requires a showing of an “immutable” characteristic that cannot change or should not be required to be changed. We contend that German homeschoolers are a particular social group who are being persecuted by their government.”

If they are returned to Germany, the couple could be facing more large fines, jail time and the loss of their children.  If this is not a violation of the family’s fundamental rights, then I don’t know what is.  Perhaps more importantly to all homeschoolers in America is that if Holder wins this case, there is the possibility that it could serve as a legal precedent for Obama’s efforts to outlaw homeschooling here in the US.
What gets me really hot under the collar on this case is that Holder and the DHS are allowing nearly a million illegal aliens to remain in the US, still illegally, while trying to deport a family who only wants to homeschool their children.  When Obama penned that proclamation last month, he was lying out both sides of his mouth and had no intention of doing anything for any Christian.  He’ll leap tall buildings to defend the rights of Muslim and gays, but he’ll turn his back and walk away from Christians.  The hypocrisy of the Obama administration is enough to make me want to vomit.


CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND YOUR SENATOR... THIS SHIT MUST STOP...

Chris Kyle's Killer did not kill Kyle because he had PTSD.

OK So I am posting this so we continue to get to the bottom of the Chris Kyle Assassination by the Obama Cabal.

The Killer Eddie Routh did not kill just because he claimed to have PTSD.

 THIS ARTICLE BELOW MAKES THE SYMPTOMS OF PTSD VERY CLEAR. THERE IS NOT ONE...THATS RIGHT NOT ONE INCIDENCE OF CONNECTING A MURDER TO PTSD.

SO HOW HOW COME ONLY AN ANTI OBAMA PATRIOT IS KILLED BY THE ONLY MAN  IN CLINICALLY RESEARCHED MEDICAL JOURNALS WHO WOULD HAVE KILLED SOMEONE BECAUSE OF HIS PTSD. 

REALLY ??

SOUND VERY FISHY DOESN'T IT ??

WE HAVE GUYS COMING BACK FROM VIETNAM TO IRAQ TO AFHANISTAN  WITH PTSD

AND THE ONLY GUY WHO MURDERS SOMEONE IN COLD BLOOD

IS  SOMEONE WHO IS ANTI OBAMA

AND KILLED MUSLIMS JIHADIS ??

REALLY NOW ?? 

___________________________________________________________________

Are veterans (or police officers) with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) a danger on the streets?  Are combat veterans with PTSD returning home as “trained killers?”

We have all read these newspaper headlines:  “PTSD made him a Murderer!”  “Psychologist:   Killer has PTSD!”  “War damaged vet kills girlfriend; PTSD to blame?”  “Officer uses PTSD defense for strangling, battering his wife.”HERE ARE SOME CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY FACTS!!

But what about the actual PTSD symptoms? What are they, and do they typically include violent behaviors, like murder?

Simply put, PTSD is “fear” based, not “aggression” based. The DSM-IV-R (Diagnostic Statistical Manual, Revised) is clear. In brief, the primary features of the this illness are:

· flashbacks

· withdrawal

· numbing

· hyperarousal

· and isolation.

Violence is not included. In fact, not one single research study exists linking violent behavior with the diagnosis of PTSD. While, anger and agitation are common symptoms of PTSD, these feelings tend to be turned inward, contributing to making it the terribly painful disorder it is.

These are the kind of headlines making the rounds as thousands of military veterans return from our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Not only is society fearing them, but some police departments are warning their personnel to “be on the watch” for veterans in general (as if you can tell them apart), with the implication that military service alone carries the threat of having the “PTSD germ.”   

Defense attorneys are always open for a ready-made opportunity to suggest that a suspect was conditioned by the military into responding to any stress situations with violence—and thereby commit a murder. The media, of course, sees a story guaranteed to generate both interest and controversy throughout the extended length of a trial, and the headlines, as we have seen, inflame and arouse a variety of passions.

The unfortunate consequence of this sensationalism, sadly, is to stigmatize not only veterans with PTSD, but all PTSD sufferers, as being potentially dangerous.

This is not really new. To begin with, society has always tended to view the mentally ill as “dangerous.” Mental Health America reports that characters with mental illnesses are depicted in prime time television shows as the most dangerous of all demographic groups: 60 percent were shown to be involved in crime or violence. Also, most news accounts portray people with mental illness as dangerous. The vast majority of news stories on mental illness either focus on other negative characteristics related to people with the disorder (e.g., unpredictability and unsociability) or on medical treatments.

The result is predictable. Most citizens believe persons with mental illnesses are dangerous. Instead of improving, attitudes are getting worse: a longitudinal study of American’s attitudes on mental health between 1950 and 1996 found the proportion of Americans who describe mental illness in terms consistent with violent or dangerous behavior has nearly doubled.  Many employers, already reluctant to hire anyone with a mental illness or provide them the accommodations they might need, disregard or find creative ways to circumvent the Americans with Disabilities Act and deny employment or other rights to PTSD victims, adding to the burden already faced by returning veterans. 

It is no small wonder, therefore, that we find so many police chiefs in the United States and Canada resistant to the idea that police work can lead to PTSD (and that suicide as a result is impossible).

Where do we begin, in order to address this question? Does a diagnosis of PTSD include the potential for violence?

First, we need to remember that PTSD is an injury—both emotional and physical. While it is listed as a mental illness, it is the only one listed in the DSM (Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders) as being caused by an external cause. Second, PTSD is caused when a person is exposed to a catastrophic event (or series of events over time) involving real or threatened death or injury to themselves or others. During exposure to that trauma, one experiences intense fear, feelings of helplessness, or horror.

There is likelihood that most people will experience a traumatic event at some time in their lifetime. Not all will suffer from PTSD, depending on a number of factors that include their individual backgrounds, their relationship to the type of trauma, the degree and manner of exposure, and other factors. Military combat and police work are particularly high-risk areas for PTSD, however, because of the intensity of the types of trauma, the frequency of traumatic events and, particularly in the case of law enforcement, the fact that traumatic events are accumulated over years and decades.

But what about the actual PTSD symptoms? What are they, and do they typically include violent behaviors, like murder?

Simply put, PTSD is “fear” based, not “aggression” based. The DSM-IV-R (Diagnostic Statistical Manual, Revised) is clear. In brief, the primary features of the this illness are:

· flashbacks

· withdrawal

· numbing

· hyperarousal

· and isolation.

Violence is not included. In fact, not one single research study exists linking violent behavior with the diagnosis of PTSD. While, anger and agitation are common symptoms of PTSD, these feelings tend to be turned inward, contributing to making it the terribly painful disorder it is. Combined with depression, it is not unusual for the sufferer to become suicidal. But a diagnosis of PTSD, in itself, does not make a person violent towards others. Again, the concern should be more that they will be a danger to themselves, not others. There is a possibility, of course, that unintentional harm could come to others as the result of a suicide attempt, not only by gunshot, but though an intentional automobile accident, jumping from a building, or any other number of self-destructive acts. John Violanti, Ph.D., in his book, “Police Suicide: Epidemic in Blue,” points out the interesting phenomenon of “suicide by suspect,” in which an officer consciously or unconsciously wishes to die and willfully involves himself in situations of extreme danger or confrontation with a criminal, thereby increasing the risk of death. Even so, in these situations the danger to others is indirect and unintentional.

The unfortunate result of this misinformation is that more and more cases are erroneously using the defense that PTSD is to blame for murders by veterans when, in fact, there were other emotional disorders and problems involved, including prior anger issues, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and substance abuse, that were more likely responsible for the individual’s violent behavior. Society already views the mentally ill as "dangerous"--we need to be very careful not to further stigmatize these people via this illness by suggesting that a violent/murderous potential exists or was the primary factor until everything has been examined.