Thursday, July 05, 2007

THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Uneducated and Docile


It's no secret that the US educational system doesn't do a very good job. Like clockwork, studies show that America's schoolkids lag behind their peers in pretty much every industrialized nation. We hear shocking statistics about the percentage of high-school seniors who can't find the US on an unmarked map of the world or who don't know who Abraham Lincoln was.

Fingers are pointed at various aspects of the schooling system—overcrowded classrooms, lack of funding, teachers who can't pass competency exams in their fields, etc. But these are just secondary problems. Even if they were cleared up, schools would still suck. Why? Because they were designed to.

How can I make such a bold statement? How do I know why America's public school system was designed the way it was (age-segregated, six to eight 50-minute classes in a row announced by Pavlovian bells, emphasis on rote memorization, lorded over by unquestionable authority figures, etc.)? Because the men who designed, funded, and implemented America's formal educational system in the late 1800s and early 1900s wrote about what they were doing.

Almost all of these books, articles, and reports are out of print and hard to obtain. Luckily for us, John Taylor Gatto tracked them down. Gatto was voted the New York City Teacher of the Year three times and the New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991. But he became disillusioned with schools—the way they enforce conformity, the way they kill the natural creativity, inquisitiveness, and love of learning that every little child has at the beginning. So he began to dig into terra incognita, the roots of America's educational system.

In 1888, the Senate Committee on Education was getting jittery about the localized, non-standardized, non-mandatory form of education that was actually teaching children to read at advanced levels, to comprehend history, and, egads, to think for themselves. The committee's report stated, "We believe that education is one of the principal causes of discontent of late years manifesting itself among the laboring classes."

By the turn of the century, America's new educrats were pushing a new form of schooling with a new mission (and it wasn't to teach). The famous philosopher and educator John Dewey wrote in 1897:

Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth.

In his 1905 dissertation for Columbia Teachers College, Elwood Cubberly—the future Dean of Education at Stanford—wrote that schools should be factories "in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products...manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry."

The next year, the Rockefeller Education Board—which funded the creation of numerous public schools—issued a statement which read in part:

In our dreams...people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

At the same time, William Torrey Harris, US Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906, wrote:

Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.

In that same book, The Philosophy of Education, Harris also revealed:

The great purpose of school can be realized better in dark, airless, ugly places.... It is to master the physical self, to transcend the beauty of nature. School should develop the power to withdraw from the external world.

Several years later, President Woodrow Wilson would echo these sentiments in a speech to businessmen:

We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.

Writes Gatto: "Another major architect of standardized testing, H.H. Goddard, said in his book Human Efficiency (1920) that government schooling was about 'the perfect organization of the hive.'"

While President of Harvard from 1933 to 1953, James Bryant Conant wrote that the change to a forced, rigid, potential-destroying educational system had been demanded by "certain industrialists and the innovative who were altering the nature of the industrial process."

In other words, the captains of industry and government explicitly wanted an educational system that would maintain social order by teaching us just enough to get by but not enough so that we could think for ourselves, question the sociopolitical order, or communicate articulately. We were to become good worker-drones, with a razor-thin slice of the population—mainly the children of the captains of industry and government—to rise to the level where they could continue running things.

This was the openly admitted blueprint for the public schooling system, a blueprint which remains unchanged to this day. Although the true reasons behind it aren't often publicly expressed, they're apparently still known within education circles. Clinical psychologist Bruce E. Levine wrote in 2001:

I once consulted with a teacher of an extremely bright eight-year-old boy labeled with oppositional defiant disorder. I suggested that perhaps the boy didn't have a disease, but was just bored. His teacher, a pleasant woman, agreed with me. However, she added, "They told us at the state conference that our job is to get them ready for the work world…that the children have to get used to not being stimulated all the time or they will lose their jobs in the real world."



John Taylor Gatto's book, The Underground History of American Education: An Intimate Investigation into the Problem of Modern Schooling (New York: Oxford Village Press, 2001), is the source for all of the above historical quotes. It is a profoundly important, unnerving book, which I recommend most highly. You can order it from Gatto's Website, which now contains the entire book online for free.

The final quote above is from page 74 of Bruce E. Levine's excellent book Commonsense Rebellion: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society (New York: Continuum Publishing Group, 2001).

Source: http://thememoryhole.com/edu/school-mission.htm

THE 501(c) 3 TRAP

Hush Money

by Darrell K. Corbyn

With the news of the coming Real ID act (National ID card) and the proliferation of the implanted RFID chip, I thought to myself, the churches will never stand for this. This is precisely what prophecy warned them about. The Bible even goes on to say that by taking this mark and worshiping the Antichrist and his image, one’s destiny will be torment with fire and brimstone. Certainly the churches will band together and march on Washington to stop this. A sleeping giant in the battle for our freedom from tyranny was about to awaken. However, this warm fuzzy feeling I was experiencing was about to end. Upon further research, I discovered that most churches and many charities are politically impotent. The largest like-minded connected bodies in the United States together could do very little to stop this. How could this be?

The 501©(3) trap

In 1954, Congress approved a law signed by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501[c](3) organizations, which includes churches and charities, from engaging in political activity and speaking against the government. The 501[c](3) legally makes these private organizations agencies of the government and allows them special exemption from taxes and IRS scrutiny. Also, this law put severe limits on their lobbying capabilities and virtually renders them ineffective. Practically speaking, the churches and charities trade their First Amendment right of free speech and their right to lobby for protection from the IRS. In simpler terms, hush money.

[Note: 501[c](3) is absolutely unnecessary for churches as they were already tax-exempted by IRS Code].

These 501[c](3) organizations and their staff members are prohibited from identifying with a candidate, expressing their views on issues that might indirectly associate them with a candidate or political party, and speaking out against government agencies. The prohibitions even extend to individual members of congregations within 501[c](3) churches.

Example one: Jenny, a member of the congregation, wants to get some members together after the service to meet in room A and discuss the upcoming election. She wants to research the candidates to see which one identifies the most with the values of her church, and then report her findings to the pastor. This would be a direct violation of the prohibition.

Example two: An organization that invites one candidate to speak at its well-attended annual banquet, but invites the opposing candidate to speak at a sparsely attended general meeting, would be in violation of the prohibition, even if the manner of presentation for both speakers is otherwise neutral.

Violations of 501[c](3) provisions would be punishable by the removal of the organization’s tax free status and a levy of an excise tax would be imposed by the IRS.

To be in compliance, the leaders of these organizations have to warn their members of the issues far in advance of the elections, and then hope that through grueling research, while wading through mounds of misinformation, they will connect the issues to the right candidate. What are the odds? Maybe a few will come out of the tangled web informed, but the majority will never make it. Isn’t this why we have leaders? Maybe the government only wants us to take direction from the leaders they approve. (i.e. from the media, Hollywood, and pet politicians).

Our partisan, government-sanctioned media is not controlled like the churches and is allowed to push the elite’s agenda unrestrained. This is part of the carefully-laid framework for the silent takeover of our nation [the silencing of church morality and promotion of media-induced immorality].

The politicians who passed this amendment knew they were taking away the power of the church-going masses to hold the government accountable for its actions. It enabled them to continue setting up their fascist police state and New World Order virtually unchecked. It is easier to quash a few dissidents than an organized body that is informed. The people’s power is derived from voting and putting direct pressure on misguided politicians. It is essential that issues crucial to the salvation of our free republic be identified and discussed, but that in itself does nothing to change the policies of the government.







The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307
Email: observer@coldreams.com
Web:
http://idaho-observer.com/
http://proliberty.com/observer/

Source: http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070215.htm

-------------------------------------------------

P.S. MORE ON 501(c) 3:

In 1954, Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the 501c3 system (as documented by Peter Kershaw of Heal Our Land Ministries) in order "....to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping "public policy." Kershaw continues,

"One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day.

"For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out. "
In Caesar's Grip , by Peter Kershaw

Source: http://www.theantichurch.org/501c3churchinfo.htm

SYRIAN TROOPS CROSS INTO LEBANON

News Alert

Thursday, July 5, 2007

War Preparations Continue

Syrian troops cross the Lebanese border!

NEWS BRIEF: "Syrian troops enter Lebanon, fortify positions to depth of three kilometres", DEBKAfile Intelligence, July 5, 2007

"Lebanese security sources report the intruding force backed by bulldozers has taken up position near Yanta in east Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley and is digging hundreds of trenches and bunkers in more than one area along the Lebanese border."

This area of Lebanon is very strategic and is carefully watched over by both Lebanon and Israel. This action can only be seen as preparing for war. Further, intelligence and military commands of Israel have to be very concerned that Syria has actually crossed over another country's border. Crossing an internationally recognized border is always considered an act of war.

Syria is said to be "tying up loose ends" in her war preparations.

NEWS BRIEF: "Syria quietly opens Damascus road to Quneitra, tying up last tactical ends of plan for cross-border terrorist campaign in Golan", DEBKAfile Intelligence, July 5, 2007

"On July 4, Radio Damascus’ political commentator said the large-scale Israeli military exercise which ended that night on Golan means Israel is about to go to war against Syria. However, a week before the Israeli maneuver, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources discovered that Syria had on June 26 quietly opened the Damascus-Golan road to Quneitra to civilian traffic for the first time in 40 years, even through civilian habitation in the town is still barred. The road is now open for Syrian-trained terrorists to cross the Golan border in civilian guise for attacks on Israel civilian and military targets without laying Damascus open to a charge of aggression, a ploy of which Israel may be less tolerant ..."

Syria does seem to be preparing for a new terror war of attrition. While these terror attacks are likely to be carried out by "civilians" and/or "extremists", Damascus can officially deny responsibility. However, one Israeli journalist warned that strong and continued terror attacks in this region is likely to prompt Israel to launch a counter-attack, which easily could explode into warfare.

Remember, Syria's President Assad is said to be the most convinced of all the Arab leaders that Israel's civilian leadership and the Israeli Defense Force are the weakest in Israel's history, and that now is the time the "window of vulnerability" is open for Islam to destroy the Jewish state.

Israel National News confirmed an earlier DEBKAfile article on the immediate placement of sophisticated Iranian theater missiles on the Syrian - Israeli border. However, this article contains more specific information.

NEWS BRIEF: "Iranian Missiles Could Threaten Israel from Syria", by Hillel Fendel, Israel National News, July 5, 2007

"Iran is planning to deploy, in Syria, missiles that can hit Israel, as a deterrent against a Western anti-nuclear strike upon Iran. It could happen soon, the British newspaper Telegraph reports. An agreement to this effect was signed two years ago between Iranian President Ahmedinajad and Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. The rockets in question are the Shihab-3, Scud-B, and Scud-C, which can reach any part of the State of Israel. They can be fired from mobile launchers."

"Ahmedinajad announced earlier this year that if his country feels threatened regarding its nuclear program, Israel will become its first military counter-target. The Shihab-3 is a medium-range ballistic missile with a range of over 2,000 kilometers. It has the ability to change its trajectory more than once in mid-course, protecting it significantly against Israel's anti-ballistic missile Arrow system. The Scud missiles have a range of 300 to 600 kilometers, and are less accurate than the Shihab."

Now, this article talks about the current Israeli weakness.

"MK Ephraim Sneh (Labor), a two-time Deputy Defense Minister who was succeeded this week by Matan Vilnai, warned at his farewell ceremony that Israel is not prepared for the dangers Iran presents. He charged the Olmert government with not providing enough funding, saying he is "not satisfied with the funding being allocated to the defense establishment to deal with the Iranian threat."

Then, this outgoing Deputy Defense Minister let it be known that Israel is not cooperating closely with America, which means that Israel will have to face this combination of Islamic threats by itself.

"Sneh also nixed the notion that there is coordination on an operational level between the Israel and US militaries against Iran, saying no such coordination exists."

Therefore, all elements needed to spark a regional war continue to unfold. They seem to expand and become more serious nearly every day.

Source: http://webmail.peoplepc.com/wam/msg.jsp?msgid=114&x=1266142437

ROGER WILLIAMS AND PURITAN THEOCRACY

Puritan Theocracy in Colonial America

  • Artist/Author/Producer: Roger Williams
  • Confronting Bodies: Massachusetts Bay Colony

  • Dates of action: 1635

  • Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony



Description of the Art Work

Roger Williams was an outspoken advocate of religious freedom, and was one of the first challengers of Puritan Theocracy.

Description of incident

Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for his toleration and support for religious diversity, which included, "Jews, Pagans, and Turks." His defiance over state control over religious freedom led to his expulsion from the state. Williams moved to Rhode Island and founded the city of Providence. In 1644, Williams wrote a book on religious freedom, democracy and intellectual freedom, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution.

Results of incident

In 1936, 300 years after Williams expulsion from the former colony , the state legislature retracted its expulsion order.

Source: New York Public Library

Source: http://www.cd.sc.ehu.es/FileRoom/documents/Cases/69puritanTheocracy.html

THE DOMINIONISTS


Ed Brayton over atDispatches from the Culture Wars has a thoughtful article about theocracy. He writes in response to a Joe Carter essay: http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/002939.html

Here's an excerpt. It's well worth reading the whole thing.

So who are the theocrats? They are people who hold to a position called, variously, Christian reconstructionism, dominionism (aka dominion theology), or theonomy. Generally speaking, they are post-millenial in their eschatology, though not always. They divide the Old Testament law into two types, moral and ceremonial. Ceremonial law, they argue, was made obsolete by Christ's coming to earth, but moral law they view as applicable in all times and all places. Thus, they would institute the Mosaic moral law as the civil and criminal law in the US and around the world, unless such law was explicitly overturned in the New Testament.

The leaders of this movement include: Greg Bahnsen (though he is now dead, he remains enormously influential in Calvinist circles in particular); Andrew Sandlin, head of the National Reform Association; Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics; Gary DeMar, head of American Vision; RJ Rushdoony of the Chalcedon Foundation (in many ways, the founding father of reconstructionism); John Lofton, Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party leadership; and Howard Ahmanson, a billionaire philanthropist whose money funds a wide range of religious right organizations. As we will see, these are not obscure men; they are deeply involved in religious right groups across the nation and prominent in politics as well.

One of the primary religious right groups that few have heard of is the Council for National Policy. The CNP acts as a sort of central steering committee for other religious right organizations. Founded by Tim LaHaye, who also co-founded the Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich, the CNP's behind-the-scenes influence among the religious right can hardly be overstated. To give you an example of how this all integrates with politics, consider that Weyrich is also the co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation.

The list of members of the CNP reads like a Who's Who of conservatives, especially religious conservatives, from Jesse Helms to Jack Abramoff to Ollie North to Pat Robertson. But it also includes a large number of reconstructionists. The CNP Board of Governors and executive committes have included Howard Ahmanson (also a major funder of the Discovery Institute), Howard Phillips, Weyrich and many others with close ties to theocracy movements.

Some of these men are also high officials in the Republican Party itself. David Barton, who has very close ties to reconstructionism, is the vice chair of the Texas Republican Party and was a key advisor to the 2004 Bush campaign. Many others, including DeMar, are regular guests on conservative talk shows like Hannity and Colmes, or write columns for influential conservative outlets. So while it may be unfair to consider most religious right folks as theocrats, they at least make common cause with them often.

Source: http://redsonja2000.blogspot.com/2006/04/who-are-dominionists.html

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

PATRICK HENRY SPEECH

Patrick Henry: Give me Liberty or Give Me Death

Published on Wednesday, July 04, 2007.

Source: JBS

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Source: http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=3681

LET FREEDOM RING: MY COUNTRY 'TIS OF THEE




My country, ’tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims’ pride,
From every mountainside,
Let freedom ring!


My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills,
Like that above.


Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees,
Sweet freedom’s song;
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.


Our fathers’ God, to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing;
Long may our land be bright
With freedom’s holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King.

Lyrics by Samuel F. Smith, 1832.

P.S. IN JOLLY OLD ENGLAND (YOU-KAY): THE INVESTIGATIONS CONTINUE IN THE CASE OF THE MILITANT MUSLIM TERRORIST, AMATUER DOCTORS. MEANWHILE, IN WIMBLEDON VENUS AND SERENA WILLIAMS FIGHT FOR THE PRIZE.

THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY

American Bison (79204 bytes)

Chap. 185 - The United States in Prophecy

I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. Rev. 13:11.


One nation, and only one, meets the specifications of this prophecy; it points unmistakably to the United States of America. {Mar 193.1}

Here is a striking figure of the rise and growth of our own nation. And the lamb-like horns, emblems or innocence and gentleness, well represent the character of our government, as expressed in its two fundamental principles, Republicanism and Protestantism. {Mar 193.2}

The Lord has done more for the United States than for any other country upon which the sun shines. Here He provided an asylum for His people, where they could worship Him according to the dictates of conscience. Here Christianity has progressed in its purity. The life-giving doctrine of the one Mediator between God and man has been freely taught. God designed that this country should ever remain free for all people to worship Him in accordance with the dictates of conscience. He designed that its civil institutions, in their expansive productions, should represent the freedom of gospel privileges. {Mar 193.3}

But the enemy of all righteousness has designs upon God's purpose for this country. He will bring in enterprises that will lead men to forget that there is a God. Worldliness and covetousness, which is idolatry, will prevail through the working of the archdeceiver, till the law of God, in all its bearings, shall be made void. {Mar 193.4}

I have been shown that Satan is stealing a march upon us. The law of God, through the agency of Satan, is to be made void. In our land of boasted freedom, religious liberty will come to an end. {Mar 193.5}

When our nation, in its legislative councils, shall enact laws to bind the consciences of men in regard to their religious privileges, enforcing Sunday observance, and bringing oppressive power to bear against those who keep the seventh-day Sabbath, the law of God will, to all intents and purposes, be made void in our land; and national apostasy will be followed by national ruin. {Mar 193.6}

Maranatha, pg. 193, Ellen G. White.

TO KNOW JUDGEMENT


Micah: 3


1And I said, Hear, I pray you, O heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel; Is it not for you to know judgment?

2Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones;

3Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.

4Then shall they cry unto the LORD, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings.

5Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him.

6Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.

7Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded: yea, they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer of God.

8But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.

9Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity.

10They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity.

11The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? none evil can come upon us.

12Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.

BUSH PRESIDENCY ENTERS TERMINAL PHASE

Jul 4, 2007


Bush presidency enters terminal phase
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - There may be moments during their summit at his family's compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, when President George W Bush may look with envy on his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, whose popularity at home guarantees him vast influence even as he prepares to leave office just nine months from now.

Not so for Bush, whose public approval ratings, according to polls released in just the past week, have reached all-time lows and whose influence - even over his own party - appears to be declining at warp speed.

The latter phenomenon was demonstrated to devastating effect last week when 37 of the Senate's 49 Republicans deserted the president on a critical procedural vote that appears to have doomed Bush's hopes for comprehensive immigration reform through the remaining 18 months of his term in office.

The vote marked the defeat of the most important and probably the easiest of his second term's four top domestic priorities that also included changing the social security system, easing taxes, and legislation designed to discourage tort litigation and class action suits. "He is now almost zero-for four," noted the Washington Post.

But the immigration bill's defeat was just one of a whole series of events last week that appeared to diminish whatever residual political strength Bush enjoyed going into the summer months.

This was compounded on Monday when Bush intervening to prevent vice presidential aide I Lewis "Scooter" Libby from going to jail. The president, in a statement, said the two-and-a-half year jail sentence imposed last month on Libby, who was found guilty of perjury in a case linked to the Iraq war, was "excessive". Libby still faces a US$250,000 fine. Pollster.com reported this month that "a Rasmussen automated poll (which if anything may over-represent the opinions of well informed Americans) shows Libby's favorable rating [for a pardon] at just 19% overall (and 34% among Republicans".

With regard to Iraq, the week began with a declaration of independence - and total frustration - by two key Republican senators, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Richard Lugar and George Voinovich, over Bush's determination to maintain his "surge" strategy beyond next autumn.

A floor speech by Lugar, which was also hailed by former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner, appeared to confirm that Bush, his military commanders and diplomatic officers in Baghdad have no more than 75 days - or until mid-September - to produce a dramatic turnaround in Iraq or face irresistible political pressure in Congress to begin withdrawing combat troops by early 2008 at the very latest.

In a subsequent interview, Lugar compared his speech to his break with Ronald Reagan over the latter's veto of anti-apartheid legislation in the mid-1980s. Lugar played a key role in getting Congress to override the veto, the only time Congress did so during Reagan's eight years in office.

The week ended with the expiration on Friday of Bush's five-year-old "fast-track" authority to negotiate new trade agreements and a vow by the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives to oppose a pending trade deal with South Korea and another with Colombia.

Renewing fast-track authority, which permits the president to submit new trade accords to Congress for an up-or-down vote without the possibility of any amendments, was another top administration priority that now appears to have fallen by the wayside.

If those setbacks were not enough, the Post ran an unprecedented investigative series during the week on the role of Dick Cheney which depicted the president as essentially the young dauphin to the vice president's Cardinal Richelieu - something that has long been understood by Washington insiders, but whose operational specifics were until now somewhat elusive.

What the series disclosed, according to the Post's veteran, if endlessly forgiving, political columnist, David Broder, was "a vice president who used the broad authority given him by a complaisant chief executive to bend the decision-making process to his own ends and purposes, often overriding cabinet officers and other executive branch officials along the way".

The series, which provided new grist for the mills of talk-show hosts and comedians who dominate late-night television, served only to further diminish Bush. His approval ratings in successive public opinion polls have now dropped to their lowest level ever and are approaching those of Richard Nixon just before his resignation from office in the wake of the Watergate scandal and his impeachment in 1974.

That the series coincided with Cheney's unprecedented and widely mocked insistence that he did not have to abide by certain secrecy rules because, as president of the Senate, he was not part of the executive branch, only added to the derision leveled against the administration.


Indeed, Cheney's own approval ratings, like Bush's, have dropped to historical lows. Just 28% said they approved of his handling of his job in a CBS News poll taken late last week, down from 35% in early 2006, and a high of 56% in August 2002, the same month that he launched the administration's own campaign to rally support for invading Iraq.

The same CBS poll found Bush at a record low of 27%, just one percentage point higher than the all-time, all-poll low recorded by Newsweek the previous week. Fox News, whose surveys have generally shown higher approval rates than other polls, also reported its all-time low last week at 31%.

Bush's public approval rating fell below 50% in most polls between his re-election in November 2004 and his second-term inauguration two months later and has not recovered since, giving him the record for the "longest sustained rejection by the American public" in modern US history, according to the Post.

While vehement right-wing Republican opposition to the immigration bill helped explain the Bush's latest plunge in the polls, Iraq remains the single-most important factor to the president's unpopularity.

In last week's CBS poll, 23% of respondents said they approved of his handling of the war, while 70%, including one-third of all self-identified Republicans, said they disapproved. Moreover, a whopping 77% of respondents said the war was going either "somewhat" (30%) or "very badly" (47%).

A record 40% said all troops should be withdrawn, while another 26% said they favored a decreasing the number of troops there now. A CNN poll taken a few days before showed similar numbers.

With elections 16 months away, Republican incumbents are increasingly aware that Bush/Cheney has become a serious drag on their political aspirations. And, as the election draws near, the pressure to break with the White House - absent a major change of course, at least in Iraq - will become irresistible, just as it did last week on the immigration bill.

(Inter Press Service)


Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG04Ak06.html


FOURTH OF JULY, ADAMS FAMILY STYLE


A Tradition of Celebration by the Adams Family

Researched by James R. Heintze. All Rights Reserved.





No other family has had a longer legacy of celebrating the Fourth of July than the Adams family. From 1776 to 1892, the Adams family had been involved in a myriad of Independence Day activities. John Adams (1735-1826) was instrumental in negotiating in favor of independence at the Continental Congresses (1774-78), signed the Declaration of Independence.

John Adams' famous letter of July 3, 1776, in which he wrote to his wife Abigail what his thoughts were about celebrating the Fourth of July is found on various web sites but is usually incorrectly quoted. Following is the exact text from his letter with his original spellings:

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not. (The Book of Abigail and John: Selected Letters of the Adams Family, 1762-1784, Harvard University Press, 1975, 142).
Writing that letter was an act of celebration.
In 1778, Adams and Benjamin Franklin went to Paris to try to solidify an American alliance with France for the war effort. While there, on July 4, they hosted the first American Independence Day celebration on the European continent with a dinner for "the American Gentlemen and ladies, in and about Paris" (Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, 2:317 and 4:143-44).

John Adams' second cousin Samuel Adams (1722-1803), likewise a Revolutionary patriot, helped organize the Sons of Liberty (1765), wrote articles for the press giving his arguments for independence (a doctrine that would later be familiar to all patriots). He too celebrated his dream of independence by affixing his signature to the Declaration of Independence. Samuel Adams' grandson, Samuel Adams Welles, presented a "truly patriotic oration at the Meeting House in Boston, on July 4, 1819. "The oration contained an exact and lucid history of the origin and first settlement of our country; of the rise, progress, and termination of the revolution, and of the late war [of 1812] with England" (Independent Chronicle & Boston Patriot, 7 July 1819, 2).

John Adams' eldest son, John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) gained considerable experience in the political arena through the posts he held abroad, later as Secretary of State (1817-25) under President James Monroe, and then as President (1825-28). Adams was aware of the importance celebrating the Fourth of July. In 1787, at the age of twenty, he was in Boston at the old brick meeting house listening to a Fourth of July oration (Diary of John Quincy Adams, Harvard University Press, 1981, 2:249). But not long thereafter, he was actively participating in Independence Day activities. For example, "at the request of the inhabitants of Boston," he gave an oration there on July 4, 1793 (printed, Boston: Benjamin Edes and Son, 1793).

In 1821 when President Monroe was ill on July 4 (the Executive Mansion was closed to the public), Adams represented the Executive Department at the ceremony held in the Capitol. He read an original copy of the Declaration of Independence there and gave an address (printed, Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821). During his presidency as well, Adams was very active in Independence Day activities, whether in hosting open-door dinners at the Executive Mansion, giving orations, or being involved in civic and military parades. In 1826, for example, Adams marched in a parade to the Capitol where he heard Judge Joseph Anderson give an oration.(National Intelligencer, 5 July 1826, 2). In 1828, Adams was the chief participant in the ground-breaking ceremony for the excavation of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal just above Georgetown. He not only gave a speech on that occasion, but also heard a performance of "Hail to the Chief," played by the U.S. Marine Band. Although the tune was heard previously on other social occasions, according to Elise K. Kirk, "the July 4th celebration of 1828 appears to have been the song's first association with a president" (Musical Highlights from the White House, Malabar, Fla.: Krieger Publishing Company, 1992, 21; see also, Alexandria Gazette, 7 July 1828, 3). Other Fourth of July orations given by John Quincy included:


1831, Quincy, Mass. (printed, Boston: Lord and Holbrook, 1831)
1837, Newburyport, Mass. (printed, Newburyport: Morss and Brewster, 1837)
George Washington Adams (1801-1829), the eldest son of John Quincy Adams, was a member of the class of 1821 at Harvard University. In 1824 on Independence Day, he presented an oration (published, Boston: E. Lincoln, 1824) in Quincy, Mass. Also in Quincy, Mass., on July 4, 1826, an ode he wrote on the occasion of a flag presentation was performed to the tune of "Adams and Liberty" (Columbian Sentinel, 22 July 1826, 1).

Charles Francis Adams (1807-1886), younger son of John Quincy Adams, was a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives (1841-44) and state senate (1844-45). At the onset of the Civil War, he resigned from Congress to accept an appointment by President Lincoln as minister to England. In 1843, at Faneuil Hall in Boston, Adams had the honor of giving the oration. His father John Quincy was in the audience. A local newspaper reported:


We have heard the Oration spoken of, in high terms of praise, by those who are fully competent to decide upon its merits. It was characterized by strength of language, boldness of thought, and fearless independence. The venerable John Quincy Adams was present, and listened to the discourse of his son, with evident deep feeling and interest. (The Atlas, 6 July 1843, 2.)
Other Fourth of July orations given by Charles Francis Adams included:


Quincy, "before members of the schools," 1856 (printed, Boston: Little, Brown, 1856)
Fall River, 1860 (printed, Fall River: Almy and Milne, 1860)
Taunton, Mass., "Progress of Liberty in a Hundred Years," 1876 (printed, Taunton, Mass.: C.A. Hack, 1876)
As a testimony to the life of Charles Francis Adams, in 1887, a year after he died, the noted speaker William Everett (1839-1910) presented an "Address in Commemoration of the Life and Services of Charles Francis Adams" on July 4 in the Stone Temple at Quincy, Massachusetts.

Charles Francis Adams' son, Charles Francis Adams, Jr. (1835-1915), was a Union soldier in the Civil War and eventually attained the rank of brigadier general. After the War, he spent considerable time as a historian writing about the War. In Boston, Charles Francis, Jr. gave an oration (printed, Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, 1872) on July 4, 1872. On July 4, 1874, he gave another address titled "Wessagusset and Weymouth, an Historical Address," at Weymouth, Mass., on the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town (printed, Weymouth: Weymouth Historical Society, 1905). In 1892, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the town of Quincy, Mass., he delivered an oration in the First Church there. A local newspaper quoted a portion of his speech:


The time will never come when to secure good municipal government all citizens will have to do is to cast a ballot. In Chicago, Philadelphia, New York Boston, and the other large cities municipal government is not in the hands of the citizens, but in those of interested parties. (New York Times, 5 July 1892).
This page last updated May 25, 2006

Go back to the Fourth of July homepage

Source: http://www.american.edu/heintze/Adams.htm
NOTE: Highlights added by Blogmaster.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

BUSH'S SO-CALLED "WAR AGAINST EVIL"


Commentary Last Updated: Jun 13th, 2007 - 01:11:50


Bush's so-called "war against evil"
By Richard L. Franklin
Online Journal Guest Writer


Jun 13, 2007, 01:10


"Demagogue" is often applied to one who spouts spurious oratory that nonetheless is emotionally stirring. We think of people such as Hitler, Mussolini, or the American neofascist Father Coughlin when we use words such as 'demagogue' or 'demagoguery'. These three men had an oratorical gift, which is why I never feel totally comfortable referring to the inarticulate Bush as a 'demagogue', most notably when he speaks off the cuff. In either case, his language is nonetheless often marked by some of the classic devices of demagoguery.




Such is the case when Bush takes a shot at those who question his reasons for the so-called 'war' in Iraq and Afghanistan. A growing number of Americans are coming to realize that the supposed ongoing 'war' is not even a real war. It's a bloody, imperialistic occupation of another country. A growing number of Americans are beginning to suspect the massive bloodshed and destruction inflicted on Iraq is being done simply to create a permanent outpost for Imperial America in the Middle East. As more Americans are becoming suspicious of what the cabal in the White House is up to, Bush is forced to fall back more heavily on the most common tools of jingoistic demagoguery, even though he scarcely has the verbal ability to become a true demagogue in the tradition of a Hitler or a Father Coughlin.




One of the most absurd examples of his rhetoric takes place when he turns to an old and reliable obfuscatory term, namely "evil.” When asked by reporters what the purpose of the current war is, he has more than once replied, "This is a war against evil." That kind of response seems to be extremely handy for putting a damper on any follow up questions. Reporters never follow up by asking Bush or Rice or Cheney what they mean by "evil.”




Of all the words of the demagogic vernacular, "evil" is the most meaningless, yet one of the most emotionally charged words used by demagogues, which is why they love using it.




So what exactly is an "axis of evil"? It admittedly sounds nasty, dangerous, and dark. We tend to feel we had best keep a wary eye on the members of an axis of evil and even keep ourselves primed for preemptive wars.




Well, it's time we called Bush on this kind of language. More exact parsing of comments and defining of words need to be somehow injected into public discourse. Rational thinking and speaking are absolutely essential in a democracy. Democratic theory has always embraced rational thinking as a core element of its very being. Never forget that democratic theory came primarily out of the Enlightenment, and rationality was a defining characteristic of that age. The whole democratic ethos is directed toward rational, open, lucid public discourse.




I propose a small start. Let's begin with the noun "evil.” This word does not refer to anything among the furniture of the Universe. It is an absolutely empty term. It cannot properly refer to a single concrete object in the world. It does not, and cannot, denote a thing. It can only vaguely connote a vague darkness or diabolism. It also admittedly suggests a powerful dislike or fear on the part of the speaker, but tells us little more. In practice, it's main purpose is to stir up negative emotions about persons or events, thereby gaining popular support for killing or imprisoning people or making radical societal changes that serve a ruling class..




Once strong, negative emotions are stirred up, demagogues use these feelings to generate popular support for such niceties as foreign wars, empire building, concentration camps, torture, and the elimination of civil liberties at home.




Philosophers refer to "evil" as a reification. Put more simply, the word "evil" has no referent whatsoever. It refers to no more than empty air, or perhaps some kind of amorphous, veiled, supposedly pernicious phantasm. We never know, even murkily, what that something is. We only know it is very, very bad, and we must destroy it before it destroys us.




The pure relativity of the word "evil" becomes evident when we note that Hitler was adored as a savior by millions, while still more millions came to see him as a dangerous menace to civilization. Those who adored him saw him as a good man, a veritable savior of the German people, while his detractors labeled him as an "evil" maniac; however, those who described him as mentally ill and being an extreme danger to world peace were actually saying something.




Those who label certain criminals of the world as little Hitlers in order to suggest those people are "evil," really are not saying anything more than something like, "I hate those people." The term "evil" places targeted individuals or groups into groups who require some attention, but does little to rationally understand or effectively deal with such people.




This brings me back to Bush's "war against evil." What has been spent in the way of treasure, human life, and the prestige of America is incalculable. It therefore would be prudent to be precise about exactly it is that we have bought for ourselves with these enormous costs. Saying we are being called upon to fight "a war against evil" is pure, unadulterated, manipulative propaganda, calculated to stir up emotions of fear and hatred. Popular attention is thusly turned from such horrors as America's genocidal policies and its role in global poisoning.




Amorphous, elastic, non-denotative words are worthless noises. When Bush tells us the current, so-called "war against evil" will protect us from mushroom clouds, he has drained a blatant lie of any meaning whatsoever by framing it within a "war against EVIL." We have no idea what he has said. Is such meaningless speech worth spending lives and treasure upon? Is it worth the devastation of our economy for decades to come? Is it worth massive destruction of environments for millions of years to come?




As my final look at the word "evil" (or its close relative the word "bad"), permit me to offer this prosaic example of what such words really mean, assuming they mean anything at all. Suppose you decide to make a lemon pie. To do so, you buy lemons and sugar. If the lemons turn out to be saccharin sweet, you would probably label them as "bad" because they failed to answer your interest in having tartness in your pie. If the sugar turned out to be tart, you would probably label it as "bad" because it failed to answer your interest in having sweetness in your pie.




So what does this suggest about these appellations? It simply tells us that "good" and "bad" have no core meaning other than being an indication that X does or does not answer to certain wishes or interests a person has. It's really that simple. I kid you not.




Beware of the "fog of war," and try to avoid contributing to that fog with this kind of metaphysical nonsense or to allow semantic folderol to confuse your own thinking about what your government is doing or not doing. Those who use empty terms such as "evil" should be called upon to give us real, tangible reasons for their acts. We must challenge the penchant of the White House illusionists to make meaningless noises with their mealy mouths.

Richard L. Franklin is the authorof “The Mythology of Self-Worth ,” Oxford, 2006.




Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Source: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2080.shtml

THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO, HMMMH! II

Yesterday, Monday, July 2, 2007, President Bush appeared on the news stating that during Vladimir Putin's stay at Kennebunkport, Maine; He mentioned that he had disscused with Putin, that there needed to be more "Democracy" in Russia.
Then, Bush (on the same day) commuted Scooter Libby's sentence. ??? This fellow Scooter was convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers. Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. Remember, CIA, the same one that last week revealed 'the family jewels'?
How can you call for democracy elsewhere, and dictate (in the U.S.A.) your wishes in the same breath?

ON LEWIS "SCOOTER LIBBY" COMMUTATION: SCOOTER SKIRTED, THEN, SKATES!
To qualify for a commutation a person should be serving time, and then an abridgement of the sentence would release the convicted felon from serving any additional time.

Commutation: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/commute+a+sentence
Commutation of sentence involves the reduction of legal penalties, especially of terms of imprisonment. Commutation is normally linked to prisoners' good behaviour. In the United States, reduction of sentence in federal cases is handled by the U.S. Department of Justice. State sentences are usually handled by the governor's office.

BOMBING ATTACKS FOILED IN ENGLAND:
After a succesion of Bomb Blunders over the week-end in Great Britain (you-kay), all the attempted bombings thwarted, the first suspect to be apprehended and identified (in the Suicide Bombings gone-wrong) is a Mohammed Asha. It sounds so much like the jet-ace terrorist of September 11, the deceased: Mohammad Atta?

In the recent London and Glasgow botched attacks, a pattern has been detected, it is that most of the Terrorists are doctors. Scotland Yard is working on this case to get to the bottom of this "Doctor-gate". Or is that the Doctor-no-go quasi-incident?

Blogmaster My Photo

Monday, July 02, 2007

MANKIND IS NOT IMMORTAL

Only God is Immortal - Mankind is NOT Immortal

Christ Will Soon Return for His Faithful-

Let Us All Be Ready

There is only One who has immortality:

1 Ti 6:14 ... our Lord Jesus Christ 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

JOB 14:14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. 15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee, thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands....

Notice friend in the following text, in this clear, black and white quote (It is not vague, and it cannot be interpreted two different ways), when we go to the grave and we do not know anything:

ECC 9: IO Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Notice what happens to our thoughts when we die:

PSA 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

What happens to the soul than sins?

EZE 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.... 20 ... The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

The FIRST Deception - Man is Immortal

GEN 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.

This lie by Satan caused Adam and Eve's fall. It has caused the destruction of billions down through the ages, and will yet bring about the destruction of billions now living upon the earth.

God has told us how much the dead actually know:

ECC 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward , for the

memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished,, neither have they any more a portion forever in any thing that is done under the sun.... 10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is

no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

At the second coming, the Lord will call, and we will be changed in a moment, and will answer Him:

JOB 14:14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. 15 Thou shalt call,

and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands ... 20 Thou prevailest for ever against him, and he passeth: thou changest his countenance, and sendest him away. 21 His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not, and they are brought

low, but he perceiveth it not of them.

At the latter day our Redeemer will stand on the earth, and in our NEW flesh we will see Him:

JOB 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26 And though after my

skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and

not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

THESE STATEMENTS CLEARLY INFORM US THAT THE SOUL AND BODY ARE UNCONSCIOUS DURING DEATH. Remember, God never "alters the thing that has gone out of My lips."

What About Being Absent From The Body?

We need not be confused by what Paul (by divine inspiration) says in:

2 COR 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

This is a grey text that could be taken one of two ways. First we could assume Paul meant when we die we immediately go to heaven, which would be contrary to the rest of the Bible (such as Ecc. 9:5,6,10 that we read earlier which is a clear, black and white statement that "the dead know not anything", 50 times in the Bible it is said the dead sleep). Or second, we could interpret it as meaning when a Christian (in word and deed) dies, their next conscious moment will be at the resurrection of the just, when they awake from their sleep. The moment they receive their new body will be at the resurrection when they will then be with the Lord.

Notice in the following text how the dead and the living will all meet the Lord at the same time, at Christ's return to this earth:

I THESS

4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God. and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort

one another with these words.

This unawareness of the passage of time is demonstrated by people who have been in a coma from a head injury, or any one of us who have gone to sleep tired and been awakened in what seemed to us seconds, but was in fact several hours. Also, people who are anesthetized for surgery have no awareness of the passage of time, if well anesthetized.

Remember- God never "alters the thing that has gone out of My lips."

The Thief on The Cross

You may ask about the thief on the cross who was told by Jesus, "Verily I say unto thee, today you will be with me in paradise" Mark 23:43. We should note that the punctuation in the Bible was added around 1000 AD, when the comma in this text was placed by men. What if the comma after "thee" was placed after the word "today?" It would read, "Verily I say unto thee today, you will be with me in paradise." Meaning, this day I am saying, you will be with me in paradise some day. There are two reasons why the latter interpretation is correct. First, for Christ to have meant He was going to heaven at His death would mean He is saying something contrary to the rest of the Bible. Second, on Sunday morning he said to Mary, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father" John 20:17. Jesus did not go to heaven Friday at His death. He was asleep in the grave, awaiting His resurrection.

The Death and Resurrection of Lazarus

What about Lazarus who was sick, but died before Christ made it to his home? He died and was resurrected several days later.

JOHN 11:11-14, 23-24 "'Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.' Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death; but they thought that he had spoken of taking rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, 'Lazarus is dead.'...Jesus saith unto her [Martha], 'Thy brother shall rise again.' Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day"

Notice Jesus called death a sleep and Martha knew that Lazarus would sleep until the last day of this earth. Also, did Lazarus ever speak of being in heaven?

What about Saul Consulting a Medium and Speaking to Samuel?

Is this proof of the dead communicating with us? Let's take a look at the scripture.

I SAMUEL 28:3 "Now Samuel had died, and all Israel had lamented for him and buried him in Ramah, in his own city. And Saul had put the mediums and the spiritists out of the land."

Notice how the mediums and spiritists had not been wanted in the area and were removed from the area. These people are like today's palm readers or seance leaders, who do the work of spiritulism. God condemned them in Lev. 20:27 "A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits, shall surely be put to death."

I SAMUEL 28:6 "And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by the prophets."

God was not communicating with Saul who was in need of an answer. It may have been because Saul was out of touch with God at this point. He had murdered the priests at the tabernacle of Nob, and had deliberately refused to wait for God's counsel at Gilgal (13:8-14). Notice that he resorted to seeking information from a source he had earlier condemned. He was following heathen superstition by calling on the supposed spirits of the dead for help. Saul had long been troubled by evil spirits and was now at their mercy (16:14-16).

I SAMUEL 28:8 "Then Saul said to his servants, 'Find me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.' And his servants said to him, 'In fact, there is a woman who is a medium at En Dor."

Notice what happens in the seance.

I SAMUEL 28:11-13 "...bring up Samuel for me....What did you see? And the woman said to Saul, 'I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth.' Notice here how the woman sees the spirit came out of the earth, not from heaven. How could the woman actually see Samuel when Jesus has told us that He has gone to prepare a place for us, and will "come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also." John 14:1-3. Samuel is asleep in his grave awaiting Christ's return.

I SAMUEL 28:15 "Now Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up.'" Here the narrative calls the being Samuel, but in reality it was Satan personating Samuel.

We cannot believe an encounter between two people out of the will of God, Saul and the medium, would produce something from Him. This entire encounter was from the spirit of darkness.

LEV. 20:6 "And the person who turns to mediums and familiar spirits, to prostitute himself with them, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from his people."

The Rich Man and Lazarus

In Luke 16:19-31 we find this story which is called a parable in most Bibles, of a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus who are both faced with their respective rewards, life or death. The rich man is in hades looking over to Lazarus who was flown by angels to Abraham's bosom.

This is a parable designed to meet the Jews in their thinking, focusing upon Abraham, while conveying the importance of our individual rewards. In many ways, it represented the state of the Jewish nation and the Pharisees who had rejected God in their richness, while having no compassion for the poor. The Jews were erring in thinking they would be saved merely by their lineage of Abraham and not upon character.

The old testament does not speak of life immediately after death, but Judaism at this time had come up with the theory of a conscious state between death and the resurrection and Christ used this parable to convey His point. The parable contains props which are not based upon biblical teachings, such as those suffering torment look over to those in heaven, the saved laying on Abraham's bosom, etc.

Jesus' own statements contradict any supposition that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is literal, such as, "The Son of man shall . . . reward every man according to his works" when He "shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels." (Matt. 16:27; 25:31-41; 1 Cor. 15:51-55; 1 Thess. 4:16, 17; Rev. 22:12, etc.)

What is the Soul?

Is it a separate spirit apart from the body or is it a living person? Notice what makes a living soul:

GENESIS 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

There has to be a body which has the breath of life given by God, in order for man to become a living soul. Our spirit is our breathe, which God breathes into us making us a living soul. The act of recreating our soul by uniting our body with the breath God gives us will again take place at the resurrection for those who are faithful.

Those who live during the last days of this earth, you and I possibly, will be tempted by the false Christ. His evil angels will personate our deceased loved-ones who will be telling us that Christ has changed His Ten Commandment Law.

The idea of living forever, even in a ghost-like state, originated by Satan and has been promoted by spiritualists.

REV 16.13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

REV 3: 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. 11 Behold, I come quickly. hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Does our "spirit" go to heaven after death?

Do we enter a ghost-like state after we die? Do we then go to heaven as a spirit?

Most people will say that our "spirit" goes to heaven after we die, and we continue living in a conscious state in heaven, much like a spirit. Then when the resurrection comes, we are reunited with a new body on earth.

Let's take a look at the word "spirit" as it is used in a text provided to me by someone who believes we are immortal. Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." In order to understand this text, we have to look up the meaning of the Hebrew word for spirit. It is Strongs' word number 7307 "ruwach (roo'-akh) wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation." So the Bible says in Eccl. 12:7 that our body will return to the earth, and our breath will return to God. Notice how this is reverse to our creation, Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [soul]." So when we die, the reverse of creation takes place, where our breath goes back to God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we become a ghost in heaven after we die. The only time we are conscious, is when we have a body. A body plus the breath of God = a living soul. When we get our new bodies at the second coming, we will again be conscious, as God will again breathe into us the breath of life, but this time it will be eternal!!!

Danger to ALL Who Believe in "Life After Death" or Immortality of the Soul

WHY IS A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATE OF THE DEAD IMPORTANT TO US AT THIS TIME? Angels both good and bad are able to appear as people. They can appear as our dead family members or other loved ones, or famous people or whoever they wish to personate. And since they have been here since the time of Adam and Eve, they know every detail of the lives of those long ago deceased, and can communicate those details, which convinces many people that they truly are the 'spirits of the dead'. We must know that the dead "know not anything"; otherwise we can be deceived by spirits of devils posing as people. Christ and two angels appeared to Abraham and Sarah as common travelers. The two angels appeared to Lot, his family and all the men of Sodom as ordinary travelers. (See Gen Chapters 18, 19.) Satan appeared as a serpent to Eve. If we have any question about who is talking to us, God has given us a fail-proof means of telling if they are of God or of Satan:

ISA 8.20 To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Satan will soon appear as an "angel of light" and impersonate Christ; his fallen angels will personate the apostles and other writers of the Bible. Satan in the guise of Christ will tell the world he has changed the Law of God. Since God does not "alter the thing that has gone out of my lips", this claim by Satan to have changed the law will prove that he is a impostor. The claim by his demons in the guise of Bible writers, that the Bible (God's Word) is not as they wrote it, will likewise prove them to be impostors.

2CO 11: 14 And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers

also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.

GAL 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,

let him be accursed.

JUD 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of

His saints, 15 To execute judgment upon a//, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which, they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

The Tree of Life- Necessary for Eternal Life

GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.... 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

GEN 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever. 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Adam and Eve were mortal but had access to the tree of life. When Adam sinned, he and Eve were barred from the Garden of Eden and the tree of life. From that moment on:

HEB 9:27 ... it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

Through Christ, means were provided to give mankind the gift of eternal life:

REV 22:14 Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Source: http://www.seventh-day.org/man_not_immortal.htm