Democracy Is An illusion

http://www.nazareneremnant.org/NR-Home-Page.rss

By Henry Makow, Ph.D:

http://HenryMakow.com August 20, 2005:

A "Far Side" cartoon describes our innocence about democracy.

A slave rowing a Viking ship puts up his hand and calls to the whip master: "Yoo-hoo! Oh, yoo-hoo... I think I'm getting a blister."

Like this man, most people cling to the belief that our leaders represent our interests.

"Yoo, hoo, Mr. Bush, you lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction."

At an elite gathering, Bush peered under his lectern and quipped: "Where are those weapons of mass destruction?"

A tiny cabal of international bankers chooses our "leaders". This clique, which subtly controls every significant facet of our society is gradually establishing an Orwellian global police state. Much of the ruling class has been duped to think they are building a better world.

Prove it, you say?

"The Naked Capitalist" by W.C. Skousen (available at www.abe.com andwww.bookfinder.com) is yet another smoking gun. It is based on the revelations contained in Professor Carroll Quiqley's "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time." (1966)

Quiqley, a Professor of History at the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University was a trusted insider who had access to their private archives. He felt the plot, which he supported, was too important to be kept hidden. However, shortly after publication, his book was taken off the market.

Cleon Skoussen was an FBI agent for 16 years and the Police Chief of Salt Lake City for four years. His "The Naked Capitalist" distills the most shocking evidence from Quigley's daunting 1300-page book.

At just 122 pages, "The Naked Capitalist" (1970) is a concise, lucid and absolutely convincing account of the international banker conspiracy. Historians have betrayed the public trust by largely ignoring this material.

OUR PREDICAMENT

Quigley confirms that a network of banking dynasties has, in Skousen's words, "acquired a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race." According to Quigley, they include "Baring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Selingman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Malet, and above all Rothschild and Morgan." (Citations are from Tragedy and Hope, 51-52)

Quigley confirms that, starting with the Bank of England in 1694, these dynasties organized themselves in a system of central banks that charge their respective nations billions of dollars in interest for the privilege of using currency backed by the nations' own credit. In other words, they have carried off a swindle of monstrous proportions.

Quigley quotes William Gladstone who as Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1852: "The government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." (325)

This power of the Bank of England. . . was admitted by most qualified observers. In January, 1924, Reginald McKenna. . . as chairman of the board of the Midland Bank, told its stockholders: 'I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money. . . . And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.'" [25]

Able to create money out of nothing [dubbed the "Mandrake Mechanism" by G Edward Griffin], they naturally grabbed as much of the world's real wealth as they could. Quigley writes about the formation of their American cartels: "The period 1884-1933 was the period of financial capitalism in which investment bankers moving into commercial banking and insurance on the one side, and into railroading and heavy industry on the other were able to mobilize enormous wealth and wield enormous economic, political and social power." (71)

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy... But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same policies". (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966, p. 1247-48)

Indeed their representatives, the "Eastern Establishment" i.e. the Morgans and now the Rockefellers run the United States, (as representatives of the Rothschilds in Europe). (72) The principle mechanism is the Council on Foreign Relations.

According to Quigley, the ultimate goal is "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled ...by the central banks...acting in concert." (324)
Quigley confirms that the bankers have usurped mankind's collective instincts by financing the Socialist and Communist movements. Bankers love big government because the ultimate monopoly is the State. Through it, they take over their competition and control debt, resources, market demand and labor.

Speaking of the Communist takeover of the US government in the 1930's and 1940's, Quigley writes, "it must be understood that the power that these energetic left-wingers exercised was never their own power of Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie." (954)

In other words, millions of idealists committed to human brotherhood and equality were (and are) duped into advancing a totalitarian scheme to concentrate the world's wealth and power into the hands of the superrich. More opportunistic Leftists, Communists, Feminists and Globalists prosper while piously pretending to serve humanity.

The Money Power controls the debate and encourages gridlock by backing all shades of the political spectrum and marginalizing anyone who shines the spotlight on them. (Ever wonder why the word "Rothschild" has never crossed Noam Chomsky's lips? Or why the John Birch Society debunks the obvious fact that 9-11 was an "inside job?") The media is controlled through direct ownership and advertising.

Quigley writes: "To Morgan all political parties were simply organizations to be used, and the firm always was careful to keep a foot in all camps. Morgan himself, Dwight Morrow and other partners were allied with the Republicans; Russell C. Lewffingwell was allied with the Democrats; Grayson Murphy was allied with the extreme Right; and Thomas W. Lamont was allied with the Left." (945)

The Lamont family was "sponsors and financial angels to almost a score of extreme Left organizations including the Communist Party itself." (945)

CONCLUSION

A small cabal of people who are not even citizens hold the financial purse strings of every nation.

This goes a long way to explaining "globalization" and the push to one-world government. It explains the assault on race, religion, nation and family. The bankers want a homogenous deracinated neutered world that offers no basis of resistance.

It explains why in a time of supposed security danger, the southern border of the US is practically porous. The bankers want to undermine America's European character, which it perceives as a threat.

It explains the carte blanche Israel receives, the war on Iraq, and the fact that there is no opposition to the war in the mainstream parties or press. This war desecrates a cradle of civilization and assails Islam. It is also an opportunity to create more debt and enrich the bankers and their corporate allies.
It explains 9-11, the Patriot Repression Act and the phony "War on Terror."

It explains the depraved mass media and stupefying education system. I could go on but you get the picture. We are krill at the mercy of a gigantic whale. At the very least, let's not waste energy thinking we live in a free and open society.

Our democracy is a ruse. Ostensibly it expresses the aspirations of the people. In reality, it masks the insidious anti-human agenda of the central bankers.

"The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority." (Charles, Prince of Wales)

Read More

God Hath Not Promised

Read More

Antonin Scalia routinely ruled against gay rights. Those opinions explain his philosophy.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987456/antonin-scalia-gay-rights

Justice Antonin Scalia has died. The death is already causing a bit of a political crisis as Democrats and Republicans argue over how the justice's successor will be named to the Court, particularly in an election year.

Behind all of this political wrangling is one simple fact: Scalia was very conservative. He consistently wrote opinions that drew the ire of liberals, while conservatives praised his incredible ability — as perhaps the Court's strongest writer — to eloquently explain their legal positions.

Fundamentally, Scalia's conservatism rested on one idea: The US Constitution is more constrained than his more liberal colleagues would suggest — and trying to interpret the Constitution loosely will allow the Court to strike down legitimate laws and, in the end, undermine democracy.

Perhaps no chain of cases demonstrated this better than Scalia's very consistent opposition to gay rights. In his view, it wasn't so much that he was opposed to gay rights — although he was — but that such rights simply weren't protected by a very originalist interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments.

Scalia's opposition to gay rights showed his brand of conservatism

Scalia was a consistent opponent of constitutional claims made on behalf of gay rights. He opposed striking down states' anti-sodomy laws. He opposed striking down the federal ban on same-sex marriage. And he opposed striking down states' bans on same-sex marriage.

At the heart of Scalia's opposition to gay rights was his view that the US Constitution simply did not protect the rights of gay people. So in the three major cases that came to the court since 2003, Scalia opined against gay rights in sometimes brutal dissents.

His colleagues, of course, argued that the 14th Amendment protected gay people — by forbidding any level of government from passing discriminatory laws that denied people their fundamental rights.

Scalia rejected the view, claiming the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and their framers made no mention of gay rights and therefore did not intend to protect gay people.

More broadly, Scalia feared that his colleagues were reading their views into the Constitution and dangerously expanding the document's reach, so that the Court could undermine democracy and upend state and federal laws that were, in his view, perfectly legitimate.

For instance, in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, where the Court ruled that states' anti-sodomy laws — which effectively banned gay sex — were unconstitutional, Scalia warned in his dissent that the logic used to strike down the ruling could upend states' laws against same-sex marriage:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

He did it again in 2013, in United States v. Windsor, when he warned in his dissent that striking down the federal ban on same-sex marriage would lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by "'bare . . . desire to harm'" couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Scalia, ultimately, proved to be right. The Supreme Court reasoned that all these anti-gay laws were unconstitutional for largely the same reason: They discriminated against a group of people by withholding fundamental rights and violated the 14th Amendment.

In the 2015 ruling that ultimately legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, Obergefell v. Hodges, Scalia made it very clear in his dissent that he was very unhappy that he turned out to be right. He argued that the Court had empowered itself to effectively overturn democracy at its will.

In his scathing opinion, Scalia wrote that the majority opinion a "threat to American democracy," and argued it "robs the People of … the freedom to govern themselves" while "lacking even a thin veneer of law."

Scalia even argued that the Court was too elitist and out of touch with much of the country to overturn states' bans on same-sex marriage:

Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.

At every step, from 2003 to 2015, one can see Scalia's increasing frustration about what he saw as his out-of-touch colleagues taking their broad interpretations of the Constitution too far — and that broad interpretation ultimately allowed the Court to strike down statutes that were democratically enshrined into state law.

One can of course question Scalia's logic — many legal scholars arguethat the 14th Amendment was deliberately phrased in a vague way in order to protect groups that the framers may not have conceived of. But Scalia simply rejected that notion.
Scalia advocated for an originalist interpretation of the Constitution

Underpinning his opinions was Scalia's view of a much more constrained Constitution than his liberal colleagues held. Scalia defined himself as an originalist: He argued that the Constitution should be read purely in the context of its text and the intentions of the framers, not personal beliefs or modern social conventions. This differs from some of the more liberal justices on the Court, who take a more fluid interpretation of the Constitution.

"The Constitution is a dead document," Scalia argued in 2005. "It is an enduring document that does not change, or at least does not change at the whim of the Supreme Court, but rather it changes as provided in its text as amendments are adopted."

Scalia claimed that this extended to some of the conservative causes he himself supported: "[Because of originalism] I cannot do the wicked conservative things I would want to do to this society."

(One could of course argue whether Scalia applied his originalist principles consistently. Here is one such critique.)

Scalia's stance on gay rights demonstrated his originalist view: He believed the Constitution couldn't protect gay rights, because no one could envision, for example, same-sex marriage as an issue back when the Constitution and its amendments were written.

So in Scalia's view, the court's pro–gay rights decisions read rights and limits into the Constitution that simply didn't exist, and therefore allowed the Court to strike down laws that were, in his opinion, constitutionally valid.

As Scalia told the American Enterprise Institute in 2012, "Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state."

Read More

Palestinian villagers tilled their land so well, Israel is now confiscating it from them

By Nir Hasson, Haaretz, Feb. 19, 2016

Two weeks ago, soldiers hung posters in the village of Al-Walaja, south of Jerusalem: “Notice of intent to acquire rights to the land and purchase ownership of the land required for public purposes.” In translation to non-legalese, these are orders to confiscate Palestinian land for the purpose of continuing building the West Bank separation barrier near the village.

The notice does not explain where exactly the additional land will be confiscated from. A resident who wishes to find out has to go to the Israel Land Authority offices in Jerusalem.

The problem is that the vast majority of the residents of Al-Walaja are unable to enter Jerusalem, because they are residents of the territories without Israeli work permits. That’s but one example of the Kafkaesque story that has made up the lives of the village’s residents in recent years.

As part of the absurdity, Al-Wajala’s terraces were cultivated for many years by the local Palestinian farmers. Now they’re one of the reasons for declaring the area around the village a national park–which, along with the separation barrier, threatens to keep the farmers away from the very terraces they nurtured.

The desire to preserve the landscape was one of the considerations for building the separation barrier almost adjacent to the homes of the residents rather than next to the Green Line (the pre-1967 borders of Israel).

In the name of landscape preservation, the barrier’s present route separates the villagers’ homes from their agricultural land. But the landscape already suffered serious damage when the Defense Ministry drove a wide road through the terraces several years ago. That road became superfluous after the route of the barrier was ordered changed by the Supreme Court.

A few weeks before the notices were posted in the village, the Antiquities Authority, Israel Nature and Parks Authority and the Jerusalem Development Authority published a tender for “preservation and development work” in Ein Haniya, north of the village. Ostensibly there is no connection between the notice about the barrier and the tender. In the eyes of the residents of the small farming village, though, there’s a very clear connection: They see the barrier, a national park and appropriation of the Ein Haniya spring as a tourist attraction for Israelis as part of a larger plan to expel them from the area.

The current village of Al-Walaja was founded by refugees of the original Al-Walaja, which until 1948 was located on the other side of the Refaim stream (Nahal Refaim), and was abandoned during the War of Independence. With the expansion of the boundaries of Jerusalem after the Six-Day War, part of the village was also included inside the city. But Israel made sure to annex only the land, without granting the people living on it residence status. That’s why residents of Al-Walaja have been arrested several times for illegal residence in their own homes.

Eventually, the settlement of Har Gilo was built south of the village and a high concrete wall built between it and Al-Walaja. Now the security barrier and national park will close in the village from its other three sides (heading southeast to Bethlehem will be the only route out).

Anyone visiting the area these days will easily understand the desire of the Jerusalem municipality, Jerusalem Development Authority and INPA to turn the land into a national park for city residents. The village is built above Nahal Refaim, and dozens of ancient terraces descend from it to the stream below. The green landscape sparkles and is dotted with blossoming almond trees and anemones; the heavy rains have brought abundant water to the springs and one can find brooks in places.

At the heart of this area lies Ein Haniya, one of the most beautiful springs in the Judean Hills. Two large pools and numerous archaeological remains can be found next to it. The spring is also considered a sacred place for Greek Orthodox Christians. But the spring is important not only for hikers and pilgrims, but also the residents of Al-Walaja. Shepherds used to bring their sheep and goats to drink from it, and young men from the village would bathe or hang out there, alongside visiting Israelis.

In the past year, large-scale archaeological excavations have been carried out by the Antiquities Authority. The work was done as part of the project for developing the city’s ongoing Metropolitan Park–a large park that will eventually surround Jerusalem from the south and the west. According to the plan, Ein Haniya is scheduled to become one of the park’s focal points, with a restaurant, visitors’ center, paths and lighting.

There are plans for an educational farm next to the spring for organic produce. On the other side of the stream, they are working energetically to restore terraces as part of the park, while above them, the Biblical Zoo’s huge new aquarium is being built. Ein Haniya will join many other springs that were used previously by Palestinian residents, but subsequently became attractions for Israelis.

In the collective memory of village residents, they recall 17 springs they used to have during the village’s salad days. Village resident Yasser Halifa dug a small pool many years ago that drained the water of an adjacent spring in order to irrigate green plots on his terraces. About three years ago, tourists arrived and informed him that the pool appears in the tour guides as Ein Hezi.

Zeev Hacohen, the INPA’s regional planner, promises that, for now, the village residents will be able to use Ein Haniya–but he can’t promise what will happen after the barrier is built.

Aviv Tatarsky belongs to the nonprofit Ir Amim, and has been helping the village residents for years. “Today,” he explains, “it’s clear to anyone who goes there that it’s on Palestinian territory. But you can imagine how it will be in a few years from now, with a visitors’ center, restaurant and hikers? People’s awareness will change and they will relate to it as Israeli territory. If they were to build a new settlement here, the whole world would be up in arms. But they’re making the area Israeli by means of the national park and nobody says anything.”

The terraces were cultivated for decades, perhaps even centuries, by the farmers of Al-Walaja. But now they are being used as one of the main reasons for expelling them from their land. When the route of the separation barrier was being planned, it was decided to factor the national park into the equation. In effect, a national park that was only possible because of the terraces is keeping out those who maintained them for so many years.

Read More

Antonin Scalia’s funeral reflects the justice’s life of faith

By Robert Barnes, Washington Post, February 20, 2015

Justice Antonin Scalia was prayerfully offered up by his son Paul and Washington’s political and legal elite Saturday in a formal but simple funeral Mass in the American Catholic Church’s grandest venue.

Vice President Biden, all of the living Supreme Court justices with whom Scalia served save one, congressional leaders and the city’s legal establishment were among the thousands who attended the ceremony in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Washington Archbishop Cardinal Donald Wuerl welcomed the crowd to the largest Catholic church in North America, and he drew laughter when he said it was a proper setting for the Scalia family’s request for a “simple family parish Mass.” An angelic-sounding choir and scores of white-robed priests filled the massive chamber.

But despite the setting, the ceremony was free of the encomiums that mark the send-offs of Washington’s political class. Instead, it followed the dictates of religion and placed the emphasis on the Christian promise of resurrection.

Paul Scalia said his father was a “practicing Catholic” in the sense that he was not yet perfect.

“We are gathered here because of one man,” Paul Scalia said. “A man known personally to many of us, known only by reputation to even more. A man loved by many, scorned by others. A man known for great controversy and great compassion.”

He paused. “That man of course is Jesus of Nazareth. It is he who we proclaim.”

It was a fitting service for Scalia, who died Feb. 13 at 79. He was a devout Catholic and was the member of the Supreme Court most vocal about his religion. He urged fellow intellectuals to be “fools for Christ” and once used an interview to underscore his belief in the existence of the Devil, whose latest maneuver, he said, “is getting people not to believe in him or in God.”

Scalia had made known his view that weddings and funerals “but especially funerals, are the principal occasions left in modern American when you can preach the Good News not just to the faithful, but to those who have never really heard it.”

Thomas ended his reading with the verses: “If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life? Not only that, but we also boast of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.”

“The Mass is a celebration of Christ’s sacrificial death for our sins,” said Chad C. Pecknold, a theology professor at the Catholic University of America, adjacent to the basilica. Long eulogies about the deceased distract from that central point.

Scalia said he did not approve of flowery eulogies. “Even when the deceased was an admirable person–indeed, especially when the deceased was an admirable person–praise for his virtues can cause us to forget that we are praying for, and giving thanks for, God’s inexplicable mercy to a sinner.”

Read More

Untold by Matthew West

Read More

Darwin's Dilemma - Documentary

Read More

The Privileged Planet - Documentary

Read More

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Documentary

Read More

O Sono É Essencial para o Ser Humano

Por M. Fountaine: 

Original aqui: http://directors.tfionline.com/pt/post/o-sono-e-essencial-para-o-ser-humano/

Você já ficou frustrado por sentir necessidade de muitas horas de sono, achando que estava “perdendo” quando poderia fazer coisas que desejava ou precisava fazer? Já parou para pensar por que Deus embutiu em nós tanta necessidade de dormir? Na verdade, da maneira que fomos criados, a maioria de nós precisa passar um terço de nossas vidas inativos enquanto o mundo continua girando. Já pensei nisso, principalmente quando meus afazeres me parecem muito mais importantes do que dormir. Por um lado, dormir pode parecer um luxo que me dá bem-estar, e por outro algo do qual preciso me abster em prol de atividades que considero mais importantes.

É muito fácil cortar esses períodos aparentemente improdutivos que roubam horas inestimáveis do nosso limitado número de anos nesta vida. Em um primeiro momento, o sono parece ser um empecilho na conquista de nossos objetivos, pois nos força a deixar coisas por fazer, deixar de ajudar alguém que precisa e de alcançar nossas metas porque ficamos ali estáticos esperando o corpo recarregar suas baterias.

Com essa percepção, não é de admirar que muitas vezes eu cortava horas de sono para fazer isto ou aquilo ou cuidar disto ou daquilo. Mas depois de um tempo percebi que esse hábito de me privar do sono gerava certas consequências. Aprendi pela experiência que o sono é indispensável. É fundamental para termos equilíbrio e não ficarmos exauridos.

Por isso, quando comecei a ter problemas de saúde e orei a respeito, o Senhor disse que uma das coisas que eu precisava corrigir era o meu hábito de dormir. Foi um duro discurso, porque eu nem tinha percebido o déficit de sono acumulado ao longo do tempo. Eu achava que o cansaço que sentia era porque estava ficando mais velha, trabalhava muito, e porque eu já não era mais a mesma fisicamente.

O Senhor me disse que eu precisava tentar ir para a cama mais cedo, especificamente umas duas horas antes da meia noite, que são as horas mais importantes do sono. Além disso, Ele me disse que eu precisava dormir até mais tarde.

Eu sabia que se esse conselho estava vindo do Senhor, então era um conselho sábio e sensato, o que despertou meu interesse em descobrir por que Ele considerava tão importantes esses aspectos relativos ao meu sono. Há anos, especialistas tratam da importância do sono na nossa vida. Ainda assim, só quando comecei a fazer uma compilação das muitas razões porque o sono é importante eu percebi que é prioridade ter o tipo certo de sono e dormir o suficiente no geral.

O sono tem uma grande e positiva influência em muitos aspectos das nossas vidas, e existem muitas pesquisas sobre os efeitos do sono. Ele recarrega o cérebro, melhora a memória, prolonga a vida e aumenta a criatividade. Os momentos de repouso servem para evitar inflamações e melhoram nosso desempenho no geral, tanto física quanto mentalmente, no trabalho, estudo e atividades recreativas. O sono nos deixa mais atentos, ajuda a manter um peso saudável, a reduzir o estresse e evitar acidentes. O sono também gera muitos outros benefícios, como, por exemplo, aliviar a depressão.

A necessidade de sono varia de uma pessoa para outra, mas decididamente é um elemento importante para todos. Seguem-se alguns pontos que podem nos motivar a dar a devida prioridade a esse elemento essencial da vida.

Durante o sono, nossa mente se mantém ocupada, e nesse período fortalecemos memórias, ou “praticamos” habilidades aprendidas enquanto acordados. (Esse processo é denominado consolidação da memória.)

Um estudo de 2010 revelou que o nível da proteína C-reativa, relacionada a inflamações e ao risco de acidentes cardiovasculares era mais alto em pessoas que dormiam seis horas ou menos por noite. (Inflamação também está relacionada a derrame, diabetes, artrite e envelhecimento precoce)
Pesquisadores na Universidade de Harvard e Faculdade de Boston descobriram que os componentes emocionais da memória, aparentemente fixados durante o sono, podem contribuir para o processo criativo.

Um estudo realizado em 2010 pelo boletim científico Sleep, revela que crianças entre 10 e 16 anos que apresentam problemas respiratórios durante o sono, como ronco, apneia e outras interrupções da respiração durante o período de repouso têm mais probabilidade de apresentar dificuldade de atenção e aprendizado.

A falta de sono pode gerar sintomas de TDAH em crianças, diz o Dr. David Rapoport. … “A criança não reage da mesma forma que adultos à falta de sono”, ele acrescenta. “Os adultos, se não dormem bem, sentem sono, mas as crianças ficam hiperativas.”
Pesquisadores na Universidade de Chicago descobriram que pessoas em dieta que descansavam o suficiente perdiam mais gordura — 56% da perda de peso — do que aquelas que dormiam pouco, as quais perdiam mais massa muscular.
“O sono decididamente pode reduzir o estresse e equilibrar a pressão sanguínea”, diz o Dr. Raymonde Jean. “Acredita-se que o sono afeta o nível de colesterol, um elemento muito importante nas doenças coronarianas.”
Segundo a Secretaria norte-americana de segurança de tráfico rodoviário, em 2009 o motivo principal da maioria dos acidentes fatais com um carro foi o cansaço do motorista — mais do que o álcool!
“Não dormir o suficiente contribui para a depressão”, diz o Dr. Jean. “Uma boa noite de sono ajuda bastante a diminuir a ansiedade e alterações de humor. O bom sono gera mais estabilidade emocional.”[1]

As consequências da privação do sono vão muito além da eficiência nas tarefas. A privação do sono pode debilitante ou fatal. Seguem-se alguns pontos mostrando as consequências de repetidas noites mal dormidas.
Redução do número de células e anticorpos que combatem infecções nos períodos em que dormimos pouco.
Menos de sete horas de sono por noite aumenta em até três vezes o risco de ser contagiado com o vírus da gripe.
Privação de sono crônica (dormir menos de seis horas à noite) está associada a:
- Envelhecimento da pele
- Quatro vezes mais risco de derrame para pessoas de meia idade e idosos.
- 50% maios risco de tumores malignos colorretais e de outros tipos.
- Pressão alta.
- 48% mais chance de desenvolver ou morrer de doença cardíaca.
- Nível de fertilidade mais baixo.
Perda crônica de sono pode gerar uma redução de 30 a 40% da glicose no metabolismo.
O sono retira proteínas nocivas do cérebro, melhorando a saúde mental. “Quando você não dorme o suficiente, o cérebro fica ‘sujo’.”
Perda de sono pode causar dano psicológico, porque o sono regula o fluxo de epinefrina, dopamina e serotonina, associados ao humor e comportamento.
Estudo de pesquisadores na Universidade Columbia revela que adolescentes que se deitavam às 22 horas ou antes, tinham menos probabilidade de sofrer depressão ou ter pensamentos suicidas, do que aqueles que tinham o hábito de ir para a cama depois da meia noite.
Seis horas ou menos de sono triplica o risco de acidentes relacionados a cansaço ao volante.

Estima-se que a falta de sono onera em 63 bilhões de dólares os negócios nos EUA. Os piores custos resultam do fato de a privação de sono causar problemas de saúde e lapsos na segurança. D. A. Carson escreveu:

“Somos seres humanos complexos; nossa existência física está ligada ao nosso bem-estar espiritual, perspectiva mental, relação com outros e inclusive com Deus. Às vezes, a coisa mais sagrada que se pode fazer é ter uma boa noite de sono, não passar a noite orando, mas dormindo. Com certeza não estou negando que existem ocasiões em que devemos passar a noite orando. Mas insisto que, no dia a dia, a disciplina espiritual exige as horas de sono necessárias ao nosso corpo.”[2]

Esta citação de D. A. Carson parece com algo que o Senhor já havia me mostrado. Por mais importante que a oração seja na nossa vida, se não dormirmos o suficiente ficaremos com a mente anuviada, o corpo fraco e será muito mais difícil orar de forma efetiva.

E, por fim, um pensamento de John Piper sobre a necessidade de sono do cristão: “É irracional a perspectiva de um futuro sombrio devido a quatro ou cinco horas de sono diversas noites seguidas. Mas isso é irrelevante. São os fatos. E devo viver dentro dos limites dos fatos. Recomendo que você durma o suficiente para beneficiar a sua própria visão de Deus e das Suas promessas.”[3]

Gostaria de deixar aqui alguns pontos recebidos do Senhor em profecia sobre a vital importância do equilíbrio no tocante ao sono.

Jesus: “Dormir faz bem até para o espírito. As horas que passa dormindo permitem uma conexão clara e desimpedida Comigo. É um momento de repousar, processar os pensamentos e tirar conclusões, e desenvolver mais entendimento.

“No físico, o sono permite que o corpo repare os danos, crie reservas de força espiritual, se reabasteça para combater doenças, aumentar a massa muscular ou outras áreas que ficaram enfraquecidas ou prejudicadas, e eliminar o que seu corpo não conseguiu processar enquanto estava acordado.

“Mentalmente, o sono nos oferece tempo para organizar tudo que o cérebro observou e vivenciou enquanto estávamos acordados, tirar conclusões e considerar possibilidades. É bem verdadeira a expressão em inglês que algumas pessoas usam quando não têm certeza da decisão que devem tomar: ‘Vou pensar nisso enquanto durmo’. Os pensamentos, sentimentos e input do dia precisam ser selecionados e organizados para serem usados de maneira efetiva.

“A mente precisa de tempo e foco para entender e assimilar experiências, e comparar com acontecimentos passados, um processo mais efetivo quando se está dormindo. O sono nos ajuda a entender as coisas que acontecem em nossas vidas e criar maneiras de usar esse conhecimento ou experiências de forma efetiva. Falta de sono suficiente, deteriora o corpo físico e a condição mental, por causa das funções que só são realizadas durante o sono.

“É inevitável o surgimento de emergências que não nos permitam dormir, mas o que pode causar prejuízos é a constante falta de sono um dia após o outro, sem falar que isso também vai levar embora nossa alegria, saúde, motivação e paz, porque ficaremos exaustos.”

Em paz me deito e logo adormeço, pois só tu, Senhor, me fazes viver em segurança. — Salmo 4:8 NVI

Quando se deitar, não terá medo, e o seu sono será tranquilo. — Provérbios 3:24 NVI

Será inútil levantar cedo e dormir tarde, trabalhando arduamente por alimento. O Senhor concede o sono àqueles a quem ama. — Salmo 127:2 NVI


[1] http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20459221,00.html
[2] http://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/05/14/arrogance-of-ignoring-our-need-of-sleep. Citação extraída do livro Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus, de D. A. Carson (Crossway, 2010), 147.
[3] De uma palestra de John Piper (1995) sobre Charles Spurgeon. Fonte indisponível.

Read More