Tag Archives: petition

Have We Considered Prayer?

Posted on by

Author: Pastor Daimon – CCTA Chairman

Once upon a time, there was a group of men that gathered together in the “Newfoundland” for the purpose of forming a new nation as they were escaping a tyrannical King in their “mother land.” One of their most desired freedoms to gain was the “freedom of religion,” the freedom to assemble together as a community of people who deeply believed in the LORD God our Creator. With every gathering, there was an underlying, uniformed thought among each of our founding fathers, and that thought led to an automatic action in the way of prayer at the beginning of these gatherings and assemblies. This internal, intense urge to pray was so instinctive, it was as though there was a mandate place upon them by their very own hearts to petition our Heavenly Father to guide them, intervene in every discussion, and infuse them with the wisdom to carry forth the vision for this new settlement that began with “Thirteen Colonies” and eventually became the United States of America.

These brave pilgrims enlisted the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, through the practice of prayer to speak to their hearts and minds that the vision would be clear, that their purpose would be focused, and that they would obtain complete and total victory in gaining their freedom and maintaining this freedom to establish a more perfect union. While fighting in battles against the British, these soldiers had wives and families who carried the mantle of prayer as well. We call them “prayer warriors,” better known as “intercessors” in prayer. These first settlers lived a lifestyle of prayer so much so that it was as though the LORD God was a family member living amongst them. Well, He actually was due to the fact that faith in Jesus Christ makes God our father by the “new birth” and adoption of His Spirit. Therefore, “Abba” Father was always present with these faith believing settlers and they knew it. They knew that without Him and His input, they could do nothing. But with God, all things are possible, all things are possible to them that believe, and they could do all things through Christ who strengthens them.

This nation was founded with the principles of the Scripture in mind and prayer as the engine to build properly these principles into the dynamic documents that are found to be the most powerful of all to govern a nation. Through the use of prayer, they confidently made their requests known unto God, being certain that His ears were open to their prayers, and He would hear them, forgive their sins, and heal the land. Prayer is tightly linked to God’s Providence over a nation when that nation yields to Him in all reverence. Our United States of America Founding Fathers understood this and sprinkled the inclusion of prayer and worship throughout our founding documents. They understood that repentance and prayer were as essential to live as breathing is to sustaining life, and therefore made them an essential part of the opening activities of the day, every day, in the House of Congress; that every Congressional session was to open with prayer.

The question remains, “Have we considered prayer?” “If My people, who are called by My name, would humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways (repent), then I will hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land (nation)!” (II Chronicles 7:14)

Working To End A Mistake

Posted on by

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has been put in place in various voting districts in America. The supporters of this idea claim that it gives voters more of a choice in elections. Actually, it does a really good job of confusing voters and electing peoples’ second choices rather than their first choices. For instance–if five people vote for candidate A, four people vote for candidate B and three people vote for candidate C in the usual election process, candidate A wins. In RCV, if seven people listed candidate C as their second choice and no other voters listed a second choice, candidate C would win. It’s a confusing system where no one wins.

On February 27th, Alaska Public Media reported:

A ballot measure to repeal Alaska’s ranked choice voting and return to a partisan primary has cleared an initial review.

Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who heads the Alaska Division of Elections, announced Tuesday that sponsors of the anti-ranked choice initiative gathered nearly 37,000 signatures — about 10,000 more than necessary. She said the state is still in the process of verifying all the signatures.

Phillip Izon, director of the group sponsoring the repeal, said he doesn’t expect they’ll have any trouble meeting the threshold.

“We did a lot of work on validation, verification. Spent many months on it. So we feel very confident,” he said.

The signatures come from 34 of Alaska’s 40 voting districts – four more than the law requires. 

Alaskans for Better Elections is defending the new voting system and campaigning against repeal. Its director, Juli Lucky, said her group heard of anomalies in the signature-gathering process, so they plan to examine the petitions once they’re made public.

The implementation of RCV is Alaska is probably responsible for the fact that Lisa Murkowski currently represents the State of Alaska in the Senate.

Losing Free Speech On Our College Campuses

Posted on by

The following article is from October 2020. It is from Mark Crispin Miller’s website.

This is the story:

A full professor in NYU’s Department of Media, Culture and Communication (since 1997), and a recipient of fellowships from the Rockefeller, Guggenheim and Ingram Merrill Foundations, Prof. Miller teaches a course on propaganda, focusing not only on the history of modern propaganda, but—necessarily—on propaganda drives ongoing at the time. The aim is to teach students to identify such drives for what they are, think carefully about their claims, seek out whatever data and/or arguments have been blacked out or misreported to protect those claims from contradiction, and look into the interests financing and managing the propaganda, so as to figure out its purpose.

On Sept. 20, after a class discussion of the case for universal masking as defense against transmission of SARS-COV-2 (in which discussion she did not participate), a student took to Twitter to express her fury that Prof. Miller had brought up the randomized, controlled tests—all of those so far conducted on the subject—finding that masks and ventilators are ineffective at preventing such transmission, because the COVID-19 virions are too small for such expedients to block them. Prof. Miller urged the students to read those studies, as well as others that purport to show the opposite, with due attention to the scientific reviews thereof, and possible financial links between the researchers conducting them, and such interests as Big Pharma and the Gates Foundation. Prof. Miller followed up by providing the links to the former studies (not easily found on Google, though they have all appeared in reputable medical journals), and other materials, including a video of a debate on the subject.

The student was so outraged by Prof. Miller even mentioning those studies that she called on NYU to fire him:

The article continues:

Having contacted NYU’s bias response line to report him, and getting no satisfaction there, the student kept on tweeting her demand for Prof. Miller’s termination, due to his “unhealthy amount of skepticism around health professionals,” and a range of other posts that she had seen on News from Underground, Prof. Miller’s website, and found no less insidious, misreporting that their sources were “many far right and conspiracy websites,” and therefore, evidently, not worth reading.

…The student’s call provoked a storm of tweets, many attacking her, and others thanking her—one of which was posted by Prof. Miller’s department chair, promising to act on her demand: “Julia, thank you for reporting this issue. We as a department have made this a priority and are discussing next steps.”

Let’s stop right here for a minute. When did students decide which teachers should be fired? I think it would have been appropriate simply to tell the student to take a different class.

The article notes:

Soon after this pledge of institutional support, the dean of NYU’s Steinhardt School (in which Prof. Miller teaches), together with a doctor who advises them on COVID-19 policy, emailed each of Prof. Miller’s students (without putting him on copy), starting with a ritual nod to “academic freedom,” then hinting that the studies noted in that class were dangerous misinformation. To set them straight, the two advised the students to consult the “authoritative” CDC—specifically, its list of several recent studies finding that masks are effective against COVID-19. (That the CDC itself, as well as Dr. Fauci, had, until April, publicly adhered to the consensus of those “dangerous” studies went unmentioned.) The two concluded with a stern reminder that the students are obliged to mask on campus (although Prof. Miller had made quite clear that he was not suggesting that they break NYU’s rule, which he observes himself.)

Thus that student’s tweets immediately prompted NYU to take her side, and several media outlets to attack Prof. Miller for his dissidence, without interviewing him. The following week, NYU followed up by urging him to cancel his propaganda course next term, and, instead, teach two sections of his course on cinema. Their rationale was that it would be “better for the department,” because enrollment in the latter course is always high; but then so are the enrollments for Prof. Miller’s propaganda course, which has earned the highest praises from its students.

The above information is followed by notes from students praising the professor’s class. There is also a link at the beginning of the article to a petition to sign in support of academic freedom.

What are we doing to our children in the name of education?