April 6-8, 2012
Apr 06 03:37 Who's the real Minnesotan? Apr 06 04:28 Mary Kiffmeyer debunks liberals' Photo ID myths with statistics Apr 06 10:25 Intimidation or attempted delegitimatization? Apr 06 21:00 Carlson-appointed judge throws out Dayton executive order Apr 07 15:41 Questions for AFSCME, Gov. Dayton Apr 07 22:34 Great blessings in unexpected places Apr 08 01:05 Christ, the LORD, is risen today! Apr 08 15:27 Jeremy's Egg
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Who's the real Minnesotan?
Three weeks ago, I wrote that Amy Klobuchar's daughter attended school in Virginia . Naturally, the major Minnesota media didn't think about looking into the matter.
That's quite different than the treatment Chip Cravaack has received since moving his family to New Hampshire. This article isn't from the Minnesota media but it's similar to the ones written by Minnesota media outlets, with this exception:
Last summer the congressman and his wife, Traci, bought a house at 18 Sheffield St. in Windham, paying $645,000, assessor Rex Norman said, after reviewing town records.
The four-bedroom home, with two and a half baths and a three-car garage, was built in 2002 and is assessed at $578,100. Norman described it as a "mid-range priced home" for Windham.
Cravaack is keeping a low profile in town.
"I haven't run into him at Shaw's or anywhere," Selectmen's Chairman Bruce Breton said. "I heard months ago that somebody from Minnesota moved to Sheffield Street, but I didn't know it was a congressman."
It's interesting that a congressman that's supposedly living in New Hampshire hasn't been seen since moving his family there almost a year ago.
What's more interesting is that Minnesota Amy hasn't done a townhall in her time in office. Compare that with the fact that Chip's done more than 2 dozen townhall meetings in his large district since getting sworn into Congress 15 months ago.
Cravaack hasn't been in for a haircut yet at Windham Barbershop in the Cobbetts Pond plaza.
"I don't think so," barber Tristin Herdt said. She had not heard about the Minnesota congressman living in Windham. "I'm sure it will come up," she said. "We're a barbershop."
It's telling that a congressman that's supposedly living in New Hampshire hasn't been seen in a small town of approximately 15,000 people .
What's more telling is that Chip's worked hard to provide solutions to the biggest issues facing his constituents. He's worked tirelessly to get the EIS put together so that the PolyMet mining project will become reality. That's more than what Sen. Klobuchar has done for making the project a reality. That's more than what Sen. Klobuchar and former Rep. Oberstar did to make PolyMet a reality.
It's ironic that Chip's done more to earn his re-election in 2 short years than Sen. Klobuchar's done to earn her re-election in 6 long, unproductive years in DC. In his brief time in Congress, Chip's done more to improve the lives of his constituents than Sen. Klobuchar's done for her constituents.
Tags: Chip Cravaack , Windham, New Hampshire , Minnesota , PolyMet , EPA , Townhall Meetings , GOP , Amy Klobuchar , Virginia , Photo Ops , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Friday, April 6, 2012 3:37 AM
No comments.
Mary Kiffmeyer debunks liberals' Photo ID myths with statistics
The DFL has been whining about how people will be disenfranchised if Photo ID is approved by Minnesota voters this November. They've also whined about how many people wouldn't be able to get state-issued photo identification cards.
According to hard data from other states, the worries that the DFL has been complaining about haven't come to fruition:
If passed by the people, Minnesotans will be required to use their photo identification in order to vote, as is the case in dozens of other states and was upheld by the US Supreme Court. The amendment would add integrity and keep same-day voter registration, absentee balloting, voting by mail and also allow for provisional ballots for those who show up on election day and do not have their photo ID.
Currently, 43 states use provisional ballots. Minnesota is one of only 7 states that do not. In Wisconsin, a state with similar voting laws and population to Minnesota, there were only 271 provisional ballots cast statewide in 2006. In Tennessee on March 6, 2012, with a new photo ID law, there were 285 provisional ballots cast statewide which was .004% of voters.
In short, there just aren't that many people who don't have some form of photo identification. This pdf document tells a more complete story:
In November 2006 there were 271 provisional ballots cast, 211 in November 2008 and 64 in November 2010. These numbers will increase significantly and poll workers will need additional training to ensure the process works smoothly. There are more efficient ways to provide a failsafe voting option for voters without the required identification.
It's important to view that paragraph as being 2 parts. The first part is the statistical breakdown. The rest of the paragraph is speculation. In fact, it's impossible to know whether the nonstatistical part of the paragraph is accurate.
In every court where Photo ID was challenged, not one case of voter disenfranchisement was documented so we can have confidence that with this policy every eligible voter will be able to vote.
I quoted from Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion in this post that there's no proof that photo IDs prevent eligible voters from voting. Here's part of what Justice Stevens wrote:
There is not a single plaintiff who intends not to vote because of the new law , that is, who would vote were it not for the law. There are plaintiffs who have photo IDs and so are not affected by the law at all and plaintiffs who have no photo IDs but have not said they would vote if they did and so who also are, as far as we can tell, unaffected by the law. There thus are no plaintiffs whom the law will deter from voting.
In short, the DFL and their allies have been peddling propaganda in their attempt to prevent Photo ID from becoming the law in Minnesota.
I wish I could say I'm shocked. Unfortunately, I can't honestly say that.
Tags: Justice John Paul Stevens , SCOTUS , Photo ID , Poll Tax , Majority Opinion , Provisional Ballots , Elections , Voter Fraud , DFL
Posted Friday, April 6, 2012 4:28 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Apr-12 07:44 AM
As I read that PDF document, it looks like the GAB wants less reliable means of establishing ID to be used, and the elimination of provisional ballots for those who do not. They want to continue to allow vouching for residence, and voting by students, even from out-of-state. It all seems like a way of undoing the value of a photo ID law in the name of "efficiency." That shouldn't be the criterion.
Comment 2 by Dan at 06-Apr-12 01:56 PM
I have yet to hear anyone descibe the process around photo ID. As a voter, who do I show my I.D. to? What do they do with the information they get? How do they validate that I'm showing them is real? Does photo ID address repeat voting? How?
Comment 3 by eric z at 07-Apr-12 08:00 AM
Mary Kiffmeyer is a village idiot. In a small village.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-12 10:32 AM
Eric, Thanks for that insightful opinion.
Comment 4 by Jim at 07-Apr-12 08:08 AM
The basic question is: how many fraudulent votes are cast in an election and does that number exceed the number of votes that are not cast because people do not have government issued photo IDs? My guess is more people will be disenfranchised than fraudelent votes prevented.
The statement there is no proof that voter ID prevents people from voting is simply not supported by the Stevens quote. Stevens says no "Plaintiff" has been shown to have been deterred from voting by voter ID. A plaintiff is a party to a suit, so all Stevens is saying is no party to the suit was shown to have been deterred from voting....not that no one has been deterred.
I had to take my disabled son to get a state ID, and I can tell you it wouldn't have happened if I wasn't there to take him. I can also tell you he would not have sued the state if he didn't get the ID. Getting the ID was challenging enough, going to court even more so.
Comment 5 by eric z at 07-Apr-12 03:52 PM
Gary, I have more.
Wanna hear 'em?
Comment 6 by eric z at 07-Apr-12 03:53 PM
Gary, what of Ralph K., his single term in the legislator, and his hallmark bill?
Comment 7 by eric z at 08-Apr-12 06:46 AM
All you guys.
All the navel gazing is dishonest.
It is an attempt to disenfranchise a segment of people who see Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum so much they get discouraged.
Then, if they decide to vote, they will vote lesser evil, which is Democrat, at least at the level of promises the lesser evil, while at the level of honesty, both sides run politicians.
So, this bloc of folks exist. And the voting proclivity is known. But they have a RIGHT to vote.
Poll taxes and literacy text roadblocks were removed.
Now, based on the demographics of those who might not care to take the time to get a "allowance to vote card" the GOP is hot to push its 21st century version of a poll tax - literacy test - disenfranchisement device.
It stinks, to most, but what is worse by far is all the dishonesty that comes from the GOP camp and should have died with Brietbart. Or is it Breitbart?
Whatever. But dissembling over motives, it doesn't wash.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Apr-12 08:21 AM
Eric, I know this is a foreign concept to Democrats but there's this thing called personal responsibility. In this instancce, a person's friends make sure they get the Photo ID they need. The state's responsibility is to make photo identification is easily accessible. It's a friend's responsibility to make sure their friend gets a legitimate, state-issued form of photo identification.
Besides, a person's right to vote isn't the only consideration. The Supreme Court said that states have a compelling reason to verify that ballots are only given to people who have a right to vote in that specific precinct. With the amount of voter registration fraud convictions that we've seen, it's irresponsible for there not to be reasonable safeguards.
Finally, if Democrats didn't attempt to commit voter fraud in the first place, this wouldn't be the important issue it is. And, yes, there are tons of verifiable cases where local Democratic Party officials were convicted or who plead guilty.
Comment 8 by eric z at 08-Apr-12 08:36 AM
Gary, there is such a thing as smoke and mirrors, not foreign at all to GOP politicos.
I am with ACLU and 84 year old Ruthelle Frank, in the litigation, Frank v. Walker.
How it is. Have you reliable statistical data on voter fraud, or just Brietbart [Breitbart] and his video stooge going out and about anecdotally? Something appraoching expert evidence, either way?
I think there's a half-cocked effort to smokescreen the lack of any such evidence, and to Chicken Little around in order to keep Democrats from exercising their right to vote.
Sorry if it offends, but Ellison's analysis rings more truthful than anything the Kiffmeyer household's had to offer on the question. Ellison cuts to the chase, honestly, no BS. But then his aim is to preserve the sound status quo, not to throw a sabot in the machinery.
Comment 9 by eric z at 08-Apr-12 10:31 AM
Gary, where your people, the Republicans had every motive in the world to prove that voter fraud happened to an extent it made a difference in the Franken win over Coleman, per the cleanest recount in our nation's history; there was none. Where it would have made a difference if it happened, it did not happen. So, why do you keep blowing "voter fraud" smoke but for the hope of disenfranchising a bunch of people the great majority of which would be voting Democart. It really does discredit your people and make them look like dissembling fools.
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Apr-12 04:35 PM
Eric, How do you prove voter fraud? Which Minnesota statutes gives election judges & pollwatchers the wherewithal they need to stop voter fraud?
Comment 10 by Gary Gross at 08-Apr-12 03:53 PM
Eric, Did you bother reading my post? You couldn't have if you're asking me if I have proof of voter fraud. When people register to vote, whether it's well in advance of election day or if it's Election Day, the SecState is obligated by federal law (HAVA) to send out a Postal Verification Card to the new registrant.
In 2008, more than 17,000 of these PVCs were returned as undeliverable. In the vast majority of these instances, the address didn't exist.
The situation 'improved' in 2010. 'Only' 7,500 PVCs were returned as undeliverable.
While there's no doubt some of these cards were keyed in wrong, there's no way thousands of them were.
Think about this statistic. In an average election year, there won't be a half million new voter registrations submitted. It's more like 50,000-75,000.
In other words, anywhere from 1 in 10 new voter registrations were input into the SVRS improperly to 1 in 3 new voter registrations were input improperly.
Another piece of eyewitness proof of voter fraud came from a veteran election judge:
RICK SMITHSON: We had an incident. I live in a small town of about 900 people and we had -- I'm not sure. I called one of the city council members to ask him. It was between 10 and 13 people came into the same day registration table. And by the way, I election judge all the time so I've seen situations like this, not necessarily exactly like this but very similar ones.
On this particular night, between 10 and 13 people showed up for same day registration. They had all claimed that the local laundromat address as their residence. When we challenged it, we called the State Auditors Office and we were told that there was nothing we could do about it. We were told that we couldn't interfere with their right to vote but we could make note of it.Do you really want to argue that "10 to 13 people" register to vote in a small town along the Wisconsin-Minnesota border using the local laundromat's address aren't committing voter fraud?
How much proof do I have to slap you up topside with before you'll admit that there's tons of verifiable proof of voter fraud?
Intimidation or attempted delegitimatization?
This week's biggest storyline from DC appears to be determining whether President Obama was attempting to intimidate the Supreme Court into approving O'Care . Here's what he said that's sticking in people's craw:
'I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.'
I don't buy the notion that he was attempting to intimidate the justices into approving O'Care. I'm more inclined to think that he's attempting to delegitimize the Supreme Court as an institution.
In order to understand President Obama's tactics, you have to look at what he's done in the past. In 2009, President Obama threw out well-settled law in giving the UAW priority over secured bondholders . In doing that, he essentially said that the rule of law wasn't as important as helping his political allies.
Fast-forward to today and last week's oral arguments on whether O'Care is constitutional. By all accounts, things didn't go well for the government's lawyers. It isn't a stretch to think that, over the weekend, President Obama met with Mr. Axelrod to plot a strategy for when his pet project is overturned by the Supreme Court.
President Obama is already planning on running against a do-nothing
During the 2008 campaign, President Obama said that we were "only 5 days away from radically transforming" the United States. Attempting to delegitimize the Supreme Court, especially after SCOTUS threw out his signature accomplishment, would be just another instance of the ends justifying the means from this administration.
Either way, the United States can't afford another 4 years of President Obama's 'accomplishments.'
Tags: President Obama , Obamacare , Intimidation , Cheap Shot , David Axelrod , Strategy , Campaign , Do-Nothing Congress , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Friday, April 6, 2012 10:25 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 06-Apr-12 03:51 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget he has already attacked the Supreme Court before today. Remember the State of the Union address where he called them out for a ruling which technically should've been 9-0 since the first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law"
Also lets not forget he made the claim properly elected. Um California properly voted to say marriage is between a man and a woman. Has he he rushed to stop the court from ruling that effort illegal. I don't think so.
Also his justice department has taken Arizona, South Carolina, Texas, Alabama, and other states to court because their legislatures have passed laws which they say are illegal.
Given this whole record he has no right to claim the Supreme Court can't do this.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 07-Apr-12 07:57 AM
You are saying the nation should have let General Motors perish, for love of bond holders? Gary, how may GM bonds did you get hurt on? No wonder you are finding the silent switchover to raider Romney okay and trouble free.
Bury the enterprise, but elevate the bond holders to supreme status? Come on. What's that a recipe for but war in the streets, ultimately?
And dumping that healthcare mish-mosh means all the better for the ultimate inevitable switch to single payer, so on that, let the politicians on the Court play on.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-12 10:42 AM
Eric, First things first. GM bondholders should've gotten paid first, not the UAW. Second, GM was never in danger of going out of business. They would've filed for reorganization through bankruptcy. That would've allowed them to renegotiate retirement benefits with the union. At the time, GM was paying more money to retiree benefits than to active workers. Also, the benefit packages were totally unsustainable.
Why should unions get paid that type of money while dragging GM down?
As for the 'politicians on the court', Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer & Ginsburg don't care about what's written in the Constitution. They care about the policy. President Obama accused the conservative justices of being activist judges. That's totally laughable. By President Obama's definition, people that actually follow the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers are activist justices. That's a deceitful, dishonest opinion.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 07-Apr-12 11:52 AM
Eric:
Keep in mind the law as written was GM go to bankrupty and work stuff out. The bond holders get priority to get paid back. The idea is GM works out the deal with the bond holders not the government come in and say this is the deal and then give the money that the bond holders gave up to the UAW and not the company.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-12 12:06 PM
Eric, it's important to remember that the secured bondholders accepted a smaller interest rate in exchange for being the first in line to get paid in case of financial difficulty. That's basic contract law & President Obama chose to obliterate that contractual obligation just so he could pay off his union allies.
Where's the rule of law in that? Or do you favor the rule of law only when it helps your friends?
Comment 4 by eric z at 07-Apr-12 03:59 PM
Walter, Gary, do you have a cause number for the bondholder lawsuit? If they're not litigating, what's in it for others to be casting stones?
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-12 04:05 PM
The lawsuit was filed, then dropped when President Obama went into full intimidation mode at the White House.
Comment 6 by eric z at 08-Apr-12 06:40 AM
Dropped as in settled? Dropped as in offered a better option than litigation presented?
What, did he mention all the Wall Street - AIG bailout cash, and connect dots, so that the Wall Street greed merchants backed down? Is that "intimidation?" Or is it a needed dose of reality?
Do you have a cause number, or litigation copies, or a series of links, ideally reporting vs. op-ed?
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 09-Apr-12 04:43 PM
eric:
If we had a President who obeyed the law and didn't try to stop citizens from doing things which they legally are entitled you wouldn't have a problem.
Oh I forgot because Obama is God to you he can break every law in the book and do every immoral act possible.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Carlson-appointed judge throws out Dayton executive order
Ramsey County Judge Dale Lindman ruled today that Gov. Dayton's Executive Order calling for the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) to oversee the unionization of child care providers is unconstitutional.
Judge Lindman, an appointee of Gov. Arne Carlson, said that Gov. Dayton's EO is "an unconstitutional usurpation of the Legislature's right to create or amend laws", which "is a violation of the Separation of Powers principle."
This is a stinging defeat for Gov. Dayton, AFSCME and the SEIU. Judge Lindman said that the BMS doesn't have statutory authority through Chapter 179 to get involved in this dispute, adding that they only have the authority to mediate in employer-employee disputes.
Judge Lindman said that there isn't an employer-employee relationship between the state government and the child care providers, most likely because of Minnesota's definition of a government employee, which I wrote about here :
Subdivision 14. Public Employee or Public Employer
"Public employee" or "employee" means any person appointed or employed by a public employer except:
(a) elected public officials;
(b) election officers;
(c) commissioned or enlisted personnel of the Minnesota National Guard;
(d) emergency employees who are employed for emergency work caused by natural disaster;
(e) part-time employees whose service does not exceed the lesser of 14 hours per week or 35 percent of the normal work week in the employee's appropriate unit;
(f) employees whose positions are basically temporary or seasonal in character and: (1) are not for more than 67 working days in any calendar year; or (2) are not for more than 100 working days in any calendar year and the employees are under the age of 22, are full-time students enrolled in a nonprofit or public educational institution prior to being hired by the employer, and have indicated, either in an application for employment or by being enrolled at an educational institution for the next academic year or term, an intention to continue as students during or after their temporary employment.
Simply put, Judge Lindman ruled that independant small business owners aren't government employees because they don't fit the definition in Minnesota law.
Sen. Hann issued this statement:
'I am pleased with Judge Lindman's ruling today on the side of Minnesota small businesses. Last year, we filed an amicus brief in support of child care providers, expressing deep concern over the Governor's desire to create law through executive order, a process we believe is unconstitutional. We want to thank the providers for taking the time and effort to stand up for their rights as independent, privately-owned and managed day care providers,' said Senator Hann.
Sen. Parry issued this statement on today's ruling:
'This is great news for child care providers in Minnesota! We strongly believe that the Governor does not have the authority to hold a union election for child care providers and Judge Lindman's decision today confirmed our belief. We will continue to push back against the Governor's troubling pattern of ignoring the law, overreaching into the private sector and are optimistic that we will continue to prevail as we have today,' concluded Senator Parry.
Gov. Dayton's willingness to ignore clearly written state law in the hopes of helping his political allies is disturbing. When the law isn't applied uniformly, that's the definition of the ends justifies the means.
That isn't justice. That's the heart of political patronage, which leads to cronyism and other types of corruption.
Follow this link for more on the child care/unionization court fight.
Tags: Judge Dale Lindman , Ramsey County , Judiciary , Mark Dayton , AFSCME , SEIU , Unions , Corruption , Cronyism , DFL , Child Care Providers , Small Businesses , Mike Parry , David Hann , MNGOP
Posted Friday, April 6, 2012 9:00 PM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 07-Apr-12 02:04 AM
How dumb can Gov. Dayton get? An executive order bypassing the legislative process to start unionizing child care workers? Did a legislative attorney say, "Great idea, Gov! Go for it...no judge will even think of striking this one down!" Dumb, dumb, and dumb!
Comment 2 by Patrick at 07-Apr-12 05:43 AM
Next thing you know they will be ignoring their own policies.
Comment 3 by Steve at 07-Apr-12 02:23 PM
THANK YOU for posting this! I love visiting - keep up the great work!!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Comment 4 by Gary at 10-Apr-12 01:01 AM
It is encouraging to think that even an appointee by Gov Carlson will uphold the law. Amazing! There is hope yet.
Questions for AFSCME, Gov. Dayton
After Judge Lindman ruled that Gov. Dayton had overstepped his constitutional authority in ordering a unionization election, AFSCME issued a statement on the lawsuit . Here's the heart of AFSCME's statement:
Today, Ramsey County District Judge Dale Lindman overturned Governor Dayton's executive order giving certain child care providers the right to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union. AFSCME Council 5 spokesperson, Jennifer Munt, responded with the following statement.
'This ruling is disappointing, but not unexpected. Right-wing legislators and their tea-party allies sued to score political points. Their victory denies child care providers their democratic right to vote.
'A union exists wherever workers pull together with a common purpose. We're united to increase the quality of child care, to improve access for working parents, and to stabilize our profession. No judge or politician can stop that.'
AFSCME's statement wouldn't exist if not for the spin. First, I'm tired of hearing the line about "right-wing legislators" and their "TEA Party allies".
The vast majority of people agree with the TEA Party's principles of controlling spending and limiting government's influence. The only people who feel threatened by the constitutional principle of limited government are progressives like Ms. Munt and AFSCME thugs.
Second, saying that unions exist "wherever workers pull together with a common purpose" sounds nice but it doesn't have anything to do with reality. These in-home child care providers are independent small business owners. They aren't employees. Most child care small businesses are sole proprietorships.
These facts should lead people to ask Ms. Munt and AFSCME Council 5 to answer this set of questions:
1. Can you cite an example of where small business owners were unionized?
2. Does AFSCME admit that the group of people who provide child care to parents receiving government assistance is a fluid, ever-changing group? If not, why not?
3. If AFSCME admits that the child care providers whose clients receive government assistance is ever-changing, shouldn't all 11,000 in-home child care small businesses be allowed to vote in a unionization election?
4. Would AFSCME do what their clients told them to do? Or would they do the things that their leadership told them to do?
5. What verifiable proof does AFSCME have that the things they've bargained for have improved child care quality, improved access for parents or stabilized the child care profession?
6. Won't child care unionization inflate the cost of child care?
7. Isn't it AFSCME's intent to increase the cost of child care, then have state government increase child care subsidies?
8. Won't Minnesota's taxpayers eventually pay those subsidies?
Judge Lindman ordered the defendants to pay court costs and the plaintiffs' attorneys fees, which could easily cost state taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. Katharine Tinucci, Gov. Dayton's spokesperson, said that Gov. Dayton is considering appealing Judge Lindman's ruling.
Minnesota taxpayers should call Gov. Dayton's office and tell him not to file another expensive and futile appeal . We can't afford another expensive bill like he just added to the taxpayers' burden.
Tags: AFSCME , Unionization , Jennifer Munt , Mark Dayton , Katharine Tinucci , DFL , Child Care Providers , Independant Businesses , Entrpreneurs , Separation of Powers , Constitution , Elections
Posted Saturday, April 7, 2012 3:41 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Apr-12 09:07 PM
What I find laughable is that these folks are somehow being prevented from "banding together" for their common good. They already have a voluntary association. Why should they be compelled to join another one?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-12 09:18 PM
The why is easy if you follow the money. If they aren't unionized, AFSCME & the SEIU won't have as much money to contribute to DFL campaigns.
It's nothing more complicated than that.
Comment 3 by Dave Thul at 08-Apr-12 07:42 AM
"giving certain child care providers the right to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union"
Isn't that right to work in a nutshell?
Great blessings in unexpected places
Tonight, I visited this website in hopes of finding the lyrics for a favorite Easter hymn for a Happy Easter post I'll publish first thing Easter morning. Instead, I found this article that lifted my spirits:
Lift Prayers and Praise for Youcef Nadarkhani
Execution was ordered for Youcef Nadarkhani, who was sentenced to death in Iran for refusing to renounce his Christian faith. But the prayers of many, many Christians have indeed availed much. Iranian authorities continue to raise an array of newly contrived, baseless charges as alternatives to justify their sentence (even though Youcef was never charged or tried for them) but praise God, Iran's human rights envoy has now publicly denied that that Youcef is facing a death penalty! God is so good! Youcef remains in prison for his faith, though. Continue to pray that he will be spared from execution, that he will be released soon, and that God will be glorified in all things. How wonderful it would be if Youcef could celebrate Easter with his family and his Christian brothers and sisters! For information you can follow this Google search or visit this facebook page .
You can help spread the latest news through ACLJ's Twitter campaign .
I hope I'd never be arrogant enough to expect a miracle from God. Still, it'd be fantastic to witness a miracle happen. If Iran's mullahs released Youcef Nadarkhani on Easter Sunday, I'd definitely consider that a miracle.
Whether that happens or not, it's worth everyone's while to put pressure on Iran's mullahs through Twitter campaigns or with other tools. It isn't a stretch to say that Iranian mullahs are evil, despicable people.
When I read Youcef Nadarkhani's story, I couldn't help but remember this story a friend sent me over a decade ago:
An African pastor was overwhelmed by rebels who demanded that he renounce his faith. He refused. The night before they took his life, he wrote the following on a scrap of paper.
I am part of the Fellowship of the Unashamed. I have Holy Spirit power. The die has been cast. The decision has been made. I am a disciple of His. I won't look back, let up, slow down, back away or be still. My past is redeemed, my present makes sense, my future secure. I'm finished & done with low living, sight walking, small planning, smooth knees, colorless dreams, tame visions, mundane talking, chintzy giving & dwarfed goals.
I no longer need preeminence, prosperity, position, promotions, plaudits or popularity. I don't have to be right, first, tops, recognized, regarded or rewarded. I now live by presence, lift by prayer, love by patience & labor by power.
My face is set, my gait is fast, my goal is Heaven, my road is narrow, my way is rough, my companions few, my Guide reliable, my mission clear. I can't be bought, compromised, detoured, lured away, turned back, diluted or delayed. I won't flinch in the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the presence of adversity, negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity or meander in the maze of mediocrity.
I won't give up, shut up, let up or burn up till I've preached up, paid up, stored up & stayed up for the cause of Christ. I am a disciple of JESUS. I must go till He comes, give till I drop, preach till all know & work till He stops. And when He comes to get His own, He'll have no problems recognizing me.
My colors will be clear.
I hope this story inspires you the way it's inspired me.
Tags: Youcef Nadarkhani , Christian , Easter , Miracle , Iran , Mullahs , ACLJ , Twitter , Facebook
Originally posted Saturday, April 7, 2012, revised 09-Apr 1:53 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 07-Apr-12 10:46 PM
Youcef truly understands what is at stake.
Ephesians 6:12
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-12 11:19 PM
Indeed he does.
Christ, the LORD, is risen today!
If ever a hymn captured the inspirational message of Christ's victory over the grave, it's Christ, the LORD, is risen today. Here are the inspirational lyrics of Charles Wesley's immortal hymn:
This video includes my favorite verses of the hymn:
Christ, the Lord, is risen today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens, and earth, reply, Alleluia!
Love's redeeming work is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight, the battle won, Alleluia!
Lo! the Sun's eclipse is over, Alleluia!
Lo! He sets in blood no more, Alleluia!
Vain the stone, the watch, the seal , Alleluia!
Christ hath burst the gates of hell , Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise , Alleluia!
Christ hath opened paradise, Alleluia!
Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!
Soar we now where Christ hath led, Alleluia!
Following our exalted Head, Alleluia!
Made like Him, like Him we rise, Alleluia!
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies, Alleluia!
Hail, the Lord of earth and Heaven, Alleluia!
Praise to Thee by both be given, Alleluia!
Thee we greet triumphant now, Alleluia!
Hail, the resurrection, thou, Alleluia!
King of glory, Soul of bliss, Alleluia!
Everlasting life is this, Alleluia!
Thee to know, Thy power to prove, Alleluia!
Thus to sing and thus to love, Alleluia!
Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia!
Unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia!
Who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia!
Sinners to redeem and save. Alleluia!
But the pains that He endured, Alleluia!
Our salvation have procured, Alleluia!
Now above the sky He's King, Alleluia!
Where the angels ever sing. Alleluia!
Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!
Our triumphant holy day, Alleluia!
Who did once upon the cross, Alleluia!
Suffer to redeem our loss. Alleluia!
If any Bible passage captures the spirit of the inspiration of Easter, it's found in Luke 23:32-43 :
32 There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. 33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. 34 Then Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.'[h]
And they divided His garments and cast lots. 35 And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, 'He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God.'
36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine, 37 and saying, 'If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself.'
38 And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew:[i]
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, 'If You are the Christ,[j] save Yourself and us.'
40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, 'Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.' 42 Then he said to Jesus, 'Lord,[k] remember me when You come into Your kingdom.'
43 And Jesus said to him, 'Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.'
Imagine what it was like to be the criminal who humbled himself and admitted that he deserved eternal condemnation for his crimes. His last-minute humility was what Christ was hoping to hear. As a result, that criminal was redeemed and is with Christ in Paradise.
Tags: Calvary , Christ , Cruel Cross , Criminals , Crucifixion , Paradise
Posted Sunday, April 8, 2012 1:05 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Apr-12 06:57 AM
Thank you and God bless.
Comment 2 by Jethro at 08-Apr-12 08:11 AM
Amen!
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 08-Apr-12 09:39 PM
One of my favorites. Hope you had a blessed day.
LL
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 09-Apr-12 12:46 AM
I most certainly did. This was our closing song. (First four verses.)
Jeremy's Egg
The first time I read this story, I couldn't help but get a bit emotional. I'm certain you'll see why:
Jeremy was born with a twisted body, a slow mind & a chronic, terminal illness that had been slowly killing him all his young life. Still, his parents had tried to give him as normal a life as possible & had sent him to St. Theresa's Elementary School.
At the age of 12, Jeremy was only in second grade, seemingly unable to learn. His teacher, Doris Miller, often became exasperated with him. He'd squirm in his seat, drool & make grunting noises. At other times, he spoke clearly & distinctly, as if a spot of light had penetrated the darkness of his brain. Most of the time, however, Jeremy irritated his teacher.
One day, she called his parents & asked them to come to St. Theresa's for a consultation. As the Forresters sat quietly in the empty classroom, Doris said to them, "Jeremy really belongs in a special school. It isn't fair to him to be with younger children who don't have learning problems. Why, there's a five-year gap between his age & that of the other students!" Mrs. Forrester cried softly into a tissue while her husband spoke.
"Miss Miller," he said, "there is no school of that kind nearby. It would be a terrible shock for Jeremy if we had to take him out of this school. We know he really likes it here." Doris sat for a long time after they left, staring at the snow outside the window. Its coldness seemed to seep into her soul. She wanted to sympathize with the Forresters. After all, their only child had a terminal illness. But it wasn't fair to keep him in her class. She had 18 other youngsters to teach & Jeremy was a distraction. Furthermore, he'd never learn to read or write. Why waste any more time trying?
As she pondered the situation, guilt washed over her. "Oh God," she said aloud, "here I am complaining when my problems are nothing compared with that poor family! Please help me to be more patient with Jeremy." From that day on, she tried to ignore Jeremy's noises & his blank stares. Then one day he limped to her desk, dragging his bad leg behind him. "I love you, Miss Miller," he exclaimed loudly enough for the whole class to hear. The other children snickered, & Doris's face turned red. She stammered, "Wh-Why, that's very nice, Jeremy. Now please take your seat."
Spring came & the children talked excitedly about the coming of Easter. Doris told them of the story of Jesus, & then to emphasize the idea of new life springing forth, she gave each of the children a large, plastic egg. "Now," she said to them, "I want you to take this home & bring it back tomorrow with something inside that shows new life. Do you understand?"
"Yes, Miss Miller!" the children responded enthusiastically, all except for Jeremy. He just listened intently, his eyes never left her face. He didn't even make his usual noises.
Had he understood what she'd said about Jesus' death & resurrection? Did he understand the assignment? Perhaps she should call his parents & explain the project to them. That evening, Doris's kitchen sink stopped up. She called the landlord & waited an hour for him to come by & unclog it. After that, she still had to shop for groceries, iron a blouse & prepare a vocabulary test for the next day. She completely forgot about phoning Jeremy's parents.
The next morning, 19 children came to school, laughing & talking as they placed their eggs in the large wicker basket on Miss Miller's desk. After they completed their Math lesson, it was time to open the eggs. In the first egg, Doris found a flower. "Oh yes, a flower is certainly a sign of new life," she said.
"When plants peek through the ground we know that spring is here." A small girl in the first row waved her arms. "That's my egg, Miss Miller," she called out. The next egg contained a plastic butterfly, which looked very real. Doris held it up, "We all know that a caterpillar changes & grows into a beautiful butterfly. Yes that is new life, too." Little Judy smiled proudly & said, "Miss Miller, that one is mine."
Next, Doris found a rock with moss on it. She explained that the moss, too, showed life. Billy spoke up from the back of the classroom. "My Daddy helped me!" he beamed. Then Doris opened the fourth egg. She gasped. The egg was empty! Surely it must be Jeremy's she thought, & of course, he didn't understand her instructions.
If only she hadn't forgotten to phone his parents. Because she didn't want to embarrass him, she quietly set the egg aside & reached for another. Suddenly Jeremy spoke up. "Miss Miller, aren't you going to talk about my egg?" Flustered, Doris replied, "but Jeremy, your egg is empty!"
He looked into her eyes & said softly, "Yes, but Jesus' tomb was empty too!" Time stopped. When she could speak again, Doris asked him, "Do you know why the tomb was empty?" "Oh yes!" Jeremy exclaimed. "Jesus was killed & put in there. Then His Father raised Him up!"
The recess bell rang. While the children excitedly ran out to the school yard, Doris cried. The cold inside her melted completely away. Three months later Jeremy died. Those who paid their respects at the mortuary were surprised to see 19 eggs on top of his casket, all of them empty.
Posted Sunday, April 8, 2012 3:27 PM
No comments.
