Monthly Archives: November 2012

Music Monday “Ringo Starr tour Part 5”

I went  to a Ringo Starr concert on July 4, 2012 at Orange Beach, AL and enjoyed it very much and here are some of the songs I heard that night:

Published on Jun 17, 2012 by    

Ringo Starr plays It Don’t Come Easy Live at Bethel Woods, on June 16, 2012. Front row view

Ringo Starr and Barbara Bach with Tommy Steele

____________–

Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band – “Yellow Submarine” – Live (HD) 2012 – Bethel, NY

blished on Jun 18, 2012 by    

Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band – Live – “Yellow Submarine” June 16, 2012 Bethel Woods Center For The Arts in Bethel, NY Ringo Starr, Steve Lukather, regg Rolie, Todd Rundgren, Richard Page, Mark Rivera, Gregg Bissonette Section 8 Canon SX230 HS – HD video

G .GRingo Starr and Barbara Bach«

_____——

Ringo Starr – “I Wanna Be Your Man” 1/31/2012 Craig Ferguson

Great Beatles song.

Ringo Starr - Travelling Wilburys and friends

________

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 14)

John Boehner, Speaker of the House

H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker,

I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but he will want you to leave runaway entitlement programs alone.

___________

Sen. Rand Paul Urges Colleagues to Vote for his Budget Resolution – 05/16/12

What are our choices here in the USA with our huge budget deficit? We could head to Greece or cut our budget until we have it balanced. Obama would never even consider getting close to a balanced budget while Paul would put in the spending cuts that we need to get the job done.

A few months ago, I wrote some very nice things about a budget plan put together by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, noting that:

Senator Paul and his colleagues are highlighting the fact that the plan generates a balanced budget in just five years. That’s a good outcome, but it should be a secondary selling point. All the good results in the plan – including the reduction in red ink and the flat tax – are made possible because the overall burden of federal spending is lowered.

Not surprising, one of the columnists at the Washington Post has a different perspective. In his hyperventilating column today, Dana Milbank says that Senator’s Paul’s proposal is “monstrous” and “nasty” for reining in the federal government.

The tea party darling’s plan would, among other things, cut the average Social Security recipient’s benefits by nearly 40 percent, reduce defense spending by nearly $100 billion below a level the Pentagon calls “devastating,” and end the current Medicare program in two years — even for current recipients, according to the Senate Budget Committee staff. It would eliminate the education, energy, housing and commerce departments, decimate homeland security, eviscerate programs for the poor, and give the wealthy a bonanza by reducing tax rates to 17 percent and eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. It is, all in all, quite a nasty piece of work.

Setting aside some of the inaccuracies (Social Security benefits would rise, for instance, but not as fast as they would under current law), I have two reactions to Milbank’s screed.

1. Milbank seems to think that Rand Paul’s budget is heartless and mean. Does that mean it would be nice and caring to let America descend into Greek-style fiscal chaos and economic decline? Should the United States be more like Europe, even though living standards are about 30 percent lower?

2. More amusingly, what does he think about the fact that the Senate voted against Obama’s tax-and-spend budget by a stunning margin of 99-0? That’s even worse than the 97-0 vote against the budget Obama proposed last year. The 16 votes for Rand Paul’s budget may not sound like much, but 16 is a lot more than zero.

Setting aside the snarky comments, all that Rand Paul is proposing is to limit the growth of government so that the federal budget grows by an average of about 2 percent annually.

Other nations, such as Canada and New Zealand were much more frugal when they solved their fiscal problems. But for leftists such as Milbank, any fiscal restraint apparently is “nasty” and “monsrous.”

____________

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com, www.thedailyhatch.org, ph 501-920-5733

___________

Related posts:

Government shutdown coming, will there be any tea party heroes available to stand up to Obama?

DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. Uploaded by debtlimitusa on Nov 4, 2011 A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 1)

DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. Uploaded by debtlimitusa on Nov 4, 2011 A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 7)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]

Who are the Tea Party Heroes from the 87 Freshmen Republicans?

Here is a study done on the votes of the 87 incoming freshman republicans frm the Club for Growth. Freshman Vote Study In the 2010 election, 87 freshmen House Republicans came to Washington pledging fealty to the Tea Party movement and the ideals of limited government and economic freedom. The mainstream media likes to say […]

Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview

Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview Here is an excellent interview above with Senator Lee with a fine article below from the Heritage Foundation. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) came to Washington as the a tea-party conservative with the goal of fixing the economy, addressing the debt crisis and curbing the growth of the federal […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 6)

I feel so strongly about the evil practice of running up our national debt. I was so proud of Rep. Todd Rokita who voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011 on August 11, 2011. He made this comment:   For decades now, we have spent too much money on ourselves and have intentionally allowed our […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 5)

Rep. Quayle on Fox News with Neil Cavuto __________________ We have to get people realize that the most important issue is the debt!!! Recently I read a comment by Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ) made  after voting against the amended Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011. He said it was important to compel “Congressional Democrats and […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 4)

What future does our country have if we never even attempt to balance our budget. I read some wise words by Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03) regarding the  debt ceiling deal that was passed on August 1, 2011:”Throughout this debate, the American people have demanded a real cure to America’s spending addiction – a Balanced Budget […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 3)

I read some wise comments by Idaho First District Congressman Raúl R. Labrador concerning the passage of the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 and I wanted to point them out: “The legislation  lacks a rock solid commitment to passage of a balanced budget amendment, which I believe is necessary to saving our nation.” I just […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 2)

Congressmen Tim Huelskamp on the debt ceiling I just don’t understand why people think we can go on and act like everything is okay when we have a trillion dollar deficit. Sometimes you run across some very wise words like I did the other day. Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp made the following comment on the […]

Historian David Barton’s videos and articles are displayed here on the www.thedailyhatch.org

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 3 of 5

Uploaded by  on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

_____________

David Barton is a historian  and his videos and articles can be found on www.thedailyhatch.org . Take a look at some of these links below:

President Obama:“do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” (Part 5 of David Barton’s response)

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 5/6 David Barton provided an excellent response to President Obama’s assertion: “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” Here it is: Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation? Over the past several years, President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that America […]

John Hancock’s Thanksgiving proclamation

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 1/6 I enjoyed this and wanted to pass it on from Wallbuilders: John Hancock – 10/05/1791 The following is the text of a Proclamation for a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise, issued by John Hancock (Signer of the Declaration of Independence), while he was serving as […]

David Barton:The Bible on taxes

1 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton   David Barton has some great insights on this. http://www.wallbuilders.com/sIFR/font140.swf David Barton – 04/27/2006 Capital Gains Taxes The Capital Gains Tax, which is a tax on profits, actually penalizes a person for success the more profit you make the […]

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 4)jh37

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 4)jh37 David Barton has put together a great collection of quotes from the founding fathers about their faith in Christ: The Founders As Christians  America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 Jonathan Trumbull Sr. Governor of Connecticut, […]

Was the Bible banned from our schools by the Founding Fathers? Tourguide David Barton has the answer

Was the Bible banned from our schools by the Founding Fathers? Tourguide David Barton has the answer Watch this short video for the answer. Uploaded by doctorcureton on Mar 11, 2009 Visit http://www.WatchmenPastors.org for more info. To order a DVD of David Barton’s 2 hour Capitol Tour, visit http://www.Wallbuilders.com. Encourage your pastor to participate in […]

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 1)jh34

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 1) David Barton has put together a great collection of quotes from the founding fathers about their faith in Christ: The Founders As Christians America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 1/6   04/2006 (Note: this is a […]

David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 3)

David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 3) David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 3 of 5 Uploaded by ToRenewAmerica on Apr 9, 2010 Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational […]

Brantley claims Barton is wrong about darwinism pt 7

On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted: On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published […]

George Washington at 279 (Born Feb 22, 1732) Part 13

n pictures: Japan earthquake and tsunami In association with // // In the Miyagi port city of Kesennuma, which has a population of 74,000, the waves smashed cars up against houses. Steeling the Mind Bible Conference Pt 5 of 6 David Barton In Washington’s own words: In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of […]

 

Listing of transcripts and videos of “Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave on www.theDailyHatch.org

In the last few years the number of people receiving Food Stamps has skyrocketed. President Obama has not cut any federal welfare programs but has increased them, and he  has used class warfare over and over the last few months and according to him equality at the finish line is the equality that we should all be talking about. However, socialism has never worked and it has always killed incentive to produce more. Milton Friedman shows in this film series below how so many people get caught in the “Welfare Trap.” Friedman also gives a great solution to this problem in the “negative income tax.” I am glad that I had the chance to be studying his work for over 30 years now.

In 1980 when I first sat down and read the book “Free to Choose” I was involved in Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president and excited about the race. Milton Friedman’s books and film series really helped form my conservative views. Take a look at one of my favorite films of his:

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave
Abstract:

Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions. Travelling in both Britain and the U.S., Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed. Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income. This contrasts with many of today’s programs where one dollar earned means nearly one dollar lost in welfare payments.

Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave
Transcript:
Friedman: After the 2nd World War, New York City authorities retained rent control supposedly to help their poorer citizens. The intentions were good. This in the Bronx was one result.
By the 50’s the same authorities were taxing their citizens. Including those who lived in the Bronx and other devastated areas beyond the East River to subsidize public housing. Another idea with good intentions yet poor people are paying for this, subsidized apartments for the well-to-do. When government at city or federal level spends our money to help us, strange things happen.
The idea that government had to protect us came to be accepted during the terrible years of the Depression. Capitalism was said to have failed. And politicians were looking for a new approach.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a candidate for the presidency. He was governor of New York State. At the governor’s mansion in Albany, he met repeatedly with friends and colleagues to try to find some way out of the Depression. The problems of the day were to be solved by government action and government spending. The measures that FDR and his associates discussed here derived from a long line of past experience. Some of the roots of these measures go back to Bismark’s Germany at the end of the 19th Century. The first modern state to institute old age pensions and other similar measures on the part of government. In the early 20th Century Great Britain followed suit under Lloyd George and Churchill. It too instituted old age pensions and similar plans.
These precursors of the modern welfare state had little effect on practice in the United States. But they did have a very great effect on the intellectuals on the campus like those who gathered here with FDR. The people who met here had little personal experience of the horrors of the Depression but they were confident that they had the solution. In their long discussions as they sat around this fireplace trying to design programs to meet the problems raised by the worst Depression in the history of the United States, they quite naturally drew upon the ideas that were prevalent at the time. The intellectual climate had become one in which it was taken for granted that government had to play a major role in solving the problems in providing what came later to be called Security from Cradle to Grave.
Roosevelt’s first priority after his election was to deal with massive unemployment. A Public Works program was started. The government financed projects to build highways, bridges and dams. The National Recovery Administration was set up to revitalize industry. Roosevelt wanted to see America move into a new era. The Social Security Act was passed and other measures followed. Unemployment benefits, welfare payments, distribution of surplus food. With these measures, of course, came rules, regulations and red tape as familiar today as they were novel then. The government bureaucracy began to grow and it’s been growing ever since.
This is just a small part of the Social Security empire today. Their headquarters in Baltimore has 16 rooms this size. All these people are dispensing our money with the best possible intentions. But at what cost?
In the 50 years since the Albany meetings, we have given government more and more control over our lives and our income. In New York State alone, these government buildings house 11,000 bureaucrats. Administering government programs that cost New York taxpayers 22 billion dollars. At the federal level, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare alone has a budget larger than any government in the world except only Russia and the United States.
Yet these government measures often do not help the people they are supposed to. Richard Brown’s daughter, Helema, needs constant medical attention. She has a throat defect and has to be connected to a breathing machine so that she’ll survive the nights. It’s expensive treatment and you might expect the family to qualify for a Medicaid grant.
Richard Brown: No, I don’t get it, cause I’m not eligible for it. I make a few dollars too much and the salary that I make I can’t afford to really live and to save anything is out of the question. And I mean, I live, we live from payday to payday. I mean literally from payday to payday.
Friedman: His struggle isn’t made any easier by the fact that Mr. Brown knows that if he gave up his job as an orderly at the Harlem Hospital, he would qualify for a government handout. And he’d be better off financially.
Hospital Worker: Mr. Brown, do me a favor please? There is a section patient.
Friedman: It’s a terrible pressure on him. But he is proud of the work that he does here and he’s strong enough to resist the pressure.
Richard Brown: I’m Mr. Brown. Your fully dilated and I’m here to take you to the delivery. Try not to push, please. We want to have a nice sterile delivery.
Friedman: Mr. Brown has found out the hard way that welfare programs destroy an individual’s independence.
Richard Brown: We’ve considered welfare. We went to see, to apply for welfare but, we were told that we were only eligible for $5.00 a month. And, to receive this $5.00 we would have to cash in our son’s savings bonds. And that’s not even worth it. I don’t believe in something for nothing anyway.
Mrs. Brown: I think a lot of people are capable of working and are willing to work, but it’s just the way it is set up. It, the mother and the children are better off if the husband isn’t working or if the husband isn’t there. And this breaks up so many poor families.
Friedman: One of the saddest things is that many of the children whose parents are on welfare will in their turn end up in the welfare trap when they grow up. In this public housing project in the Bronx, New York, 3/4’s of the families are now receiving welfare payments.
Well Mr. Brown wanted to keep away from this kind of thing for a very good reason. The people who get on welfare lose their human independence and feeling of dignity. They become subject to the dictates and whims of their welfare supervisor who can tell them whether they can live here or there, whether they may put in a telephone, what they may do with their lives. They are treated like children, not like responsible adults and they are trapped in the system. Maybe a job comes up which looks better than welfare but they are afraid to take it because if they lose it after a few months it maybe six months or nine months before they can get back onto welfare. And as a result, this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle rather than simply a temporary state of affairs.
Things have gone even further elsewhere. This is a huge mistake. A public housing project in Manchester, England.
Well we’re 3,000 miles away from the Bronx here but you’d never know it just by looking around. It looks as if we are at the same place. It’s the same kind of flats, the same kind of massive housing units, decrepit even though they were only built 7 or 8 years ago. Vandalism, graffiti, the same feeling about the place. Of people who don’t have a great deal of drive and energy because somebody else is taking care of their day to day needs because the state has deprived them of an incentive to find jobs to become responsible people to be the real support for themselves and their families.

Other segments:

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 7 of 7)

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. TEMIN: We don’t think the big capital arose before the government did? VON HOFFMAN: Listen, what are we doing here? I mean __ defending big government is like defending death and taxes. […]

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 6 of 7)

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen worked pretty well for a whole generation. Now anything that works well for a whole generation isn’t entirely bad. From the fact __ from that fact, and the undeniable fact that things […]

Milton Friedman discusses Reagan and Reagan discusses Friedman

Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 5 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 5 of 7 MCKENZIE: Ah, well, that’s not on our agenda actually. (Laughter) VOICE OFF SCREEN: Why not? MCKENZIE: I boldly repeat the question, though, the expectation having been __ having […]

War on poverty is a failure in USA

Milton Friedman’s solution to limiting poverty Liberals just don’t get it. They should listen to Milton Friedman (who is quoted in this video below concerning the best way to limit poverty). New Video Shows the War on Poverty Is a Failure Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released another […]

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 4 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 4 of 7 The massive growth of central government that started after the depression has continued ever since. If anything, it has even speeded up in recent years. Each year there […]

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 3 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 3 OF 7 Worse still, America’s depression was to become worldwide because of what lies behind these doors. This is the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inside […]

 

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 2 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. For the past 7 years Maureen Ramsey has had to buy food and clothes for her family out of a government handout. For the whole of that time, her husband, Steve, hasn’t […]

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7) Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave Abstract: Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Dr. Doug Groothuis reviews book on Francis Schaeffer

I enjoyed this article on Francis Schaeffer.
Amazon Verified Purchase(What’s this?)
This review is from: Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (Hardcover)

The historical significance of recently occurring events is rarely understood in the present or even for several years-or decades-later. (For that matter, historians are still debating the meaning and significance of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and so on). A biblical writer can capture the ultimate significance of an act and put it into both a cosmic and theological context of perennial value, given divine inspiration. But the uninspired historian is, of course, differently situated and imperiled by sins of omission, commission, and misinterpretation. Even the best hindsight of professional historians is less than 20/20, being somewhat tentative and open to revision.

Francis A. Schaeffer, evangelist, apologist, pastor, author, and social critic, died at the age of 72 in 1984 after a long and heroic battle with cancer. In approximately the last twenty years of his life, Schaeffer attained notoriety as one who knew how to speak Christian truth to those experiencing the upheavals of the counterculture. Although his first book, The God Who is There (1968), was not published until he was in his late fifties, Schaeffer and his inestimable wife Edith (a writer herself), had pioneered a Christian community in the Swiss Alps in 1955 called L’Abri that became a hub for Christian hospitality, conversation, apologetics and evangelism in the modern world. His lecture tours around Europe and the United States, such as at Wheaton College, were also becoming widely known and respected. In 1960, Time Magazine called him a “missionary to intellectuals.” Schaeffer went on to write over twenty books on apologetics, theology, and ethics. Most of these were developed from lecture transcripts or were aided by considerable editorial assistance. Schaeffer’s great strength was discussion and lecturing, not crafting the academic manuscript. In fact, for all his status as a Christian intellectual, Schaeffer did not hold an earned doctorate and never held a full-time academic post, although he taught as an adjunct periodically at Covenant Seminary.

Colin Duriez is a freelance writer and biography and, importantly, was a student at the Schaeffer’s Swiss L’Abri Ministry. Duriez has a firm grasp of the considerable Schaeffer corpus, but there is so much more to Schaeffer than his books, which were, in some ways, an afterthought that came after many years of ministry in the United States and Europe. Duriez makes very good use of extensive interviews with members of the Schaeffer family and of his associates such as Os Guinness, and Schaeffer’s students. Duriez says he was “guided by over 180,000 words of oral history concerning Francis Schaeffer” (10). Edith Schaeffer, who is now in her mid-nineties, was, Duriez writes, “not well enough to give me more than a warm smile and a greeting” (13). This deep resource of oral history helps fill out the biography of Schaeffer in existentially significant ways.

Duriez enters into some of the charges made against Schaeffer’s understanding of the history of philosophy and pulls in an interesting ally: C.S. Lewis. Schaeffer famously credited Aquinas as opening the door to autonomous human reasoning by his distinction of nature from grace. Nature is what can be known through unaided human reason and grace provides knowledge from a supernatural source, the Bible. Schaeffer argued (albeit very briefly) that Aquinas’s way of construing these two sources of knowledge paved the way for nature to “eat up grace”-that is, autonomous human reasoning would set itself up against biblical revelation and end us secularizing our Western worldview. Duriez notes that C.S. Lewis, an Oxford Don and scholar of much higher rank than Schaeffer, made much the same point in The Allegory of Love (172-73). Although Duriez does not mention it, the controversial Catholic theologian, Hans Kűng made the same point about Aquinas in his book, The Existence of God in 1980.

This book provides a rich account of the full gamut of Schaeffer’s life and teachings. Schaeffer was born into a humble, working class and nonintellectual family in Germantown, Pennsylvania. He surprised his parents by becoming a serious Christian and attending college and seminary. After pastoring in America, he ventured to Europe to examine the state of the churches after the devastation of World War II. He eventually settled in Switzerland where his home became a center for evangelism and hospitality. Out of this ministry eventually came Schaeffer’s books and in the final decade of his life, his unexpected and largely unwanted celebrity as a culture warrior of the New Christian Right in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Duriez argues that here was a continuity to Schaeffer’s life. Although in the early 1950’s he left the cultural isolationism and incessant in-fighting of his early Fundamentalist days, just before starting L’Abri, Schaeffer would not sacrifice what he took to be the essentials of biblical orthodoxy for popularity or for anything else. Nevertheless, he did not treat people as objects on which to protect truth. His early pastoral ministry as well as his work at L’Abri and even into his last stage as something of a Christian luminary were marked by a profound concern for human beings, who (as he never ceased emphasizing) were made “in the image and likeness of God.” In his later years, through his book and film series, “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (co-written with C. Everett Koop, who went on to become Surgeon General under President Ronald Reagan), he led the way for evangelicals to join and sustain the pro-life movement. Given Schaeffer’s theology of the person (divinely created, fallen, and in need of Christ’s redemption), he took their intellectual questions, their art, and their God-forsaking lives very seriously. Schaeffer was also a man of the Bible (and of the Reformation) until the end. He was not interested in academic apologetics per se, but wanted souls to know the God revealed in Holy Scripture. He consistently taught and preached from the Bible and wrote books commenting on Scripture (such as Genesis in Space and Time and Joshua and the Flow of Biblical History).

While some claims Schaeffer’s apologetics is out of date, they are wrong. Schaeffer anticipated much of postmodern thinking-for example, critiquing Foucault in 1971-and realized that many in the sixties and seventies had already made “the escape from reason” (the title of his second book.) His apologetic was as much one for the importance of reason as it was as a reasonable apologetic. Moreover, Schaeffer was never an arid rationalist who unloaded his apologetic system on unsuspecting unbelievers (something which might be said for some of the followers of fellow Reformed philosophers Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til). Schaeffer’s writings always engaged humans as cultural and individual beings, not disembodied intellects; hence, his emphasis on painting, music, architecture, and literature as revealing the conditions of non-Christian individuals and cultures. Further, Schaeffer was renowned for his ability to make Christianity pertinent in one-on-one and small group conversations, which involved much give and take and creativity. Schaeffer was no mere logic chopper. Schaeffer believed in the necessity of reason for a coherent, cogent, and livable worldview, but he did not affirm the sufficiency of reason. We finite and fallible humans need God’s propositional revelation in Scripture to make sense of ourselves, our world, and our God.

While Schaeffer admitted that he was not an academic philosopher-and even wrote in a letter to Duriez that his thin book, He is There, He is Not Silent, would probably be his last philosophy book (174)-Schaeffer’s basic apologetic insights hold up well today, even if we must refine his method address ideas he did not tackle. Let me mention two basic ideas that I (as a professional philosopher, unlike Schaeffer) find profound and helpful.

First, Schaeffer taught that worldviews need to be compared on the basis of objective criteria. That is, one does not simply presuppose one’s worldview apart from rational testing. Every worldview-or basic perspective on life’s deepest questions-needs to pass three individually necessary and jointly sufficient tests. First, it must be internally consistent. That is, its defining beliefs must cohere with one another. Second, a worldview needs to fit the facts of reality; it must be “true to what is,” as Schaeffer put it. A worldview needs to match the external facts of history and science. Third, a worldview needs to be livable to be credible. This means that it must pass the existential test of fitting the facts of the internal world. For example, any worldview that denies the objective reality of evil (such as secular relativism or Eastern monism) cannot be lived out consistently, since we intuitively know that rape, murder, and racism are wrong. These three apologetic criteria can be nuanced and made much more sophisticated, but they form the backbone of any solid apologetic method. These truths are far from outdated!

Second, Schaeffer repeatedly emphasized that the God of Christianity was an “infinite and personal” being, and that humans were not machines or little gods, but made in the image of this infinite-personal God. In other words, for Christianity, personality is the deepest and most profound ontological category of reality-not impersonal time, space, law, chance, matter or some impersonal sense of deity held by Eastern religions. Schaeffer’s apologetic capitalizes on this uniquely personal sense of reality held by Christianity. Persons, though fallen, have objective and eternal meaning on this scheme-as does community, since God himself is a Trinity: a relationship of divine persons coexisting in one Godhead from eternity.

I fear that the younger generation of evangelicals does not know enough about the remarkable life and achievements of Francis Schaefer; instead they are opting for the trendy but intellectually barren hype of much of the emergent church movement-which claims to be “authentic.” (“Authentic” often means little more than emotional, unconventional, and obsessively autobiographical.) Many older evangelicals may have forgotten many of the salient lessons from his life and teachings as well. Reading this biography can help rectify this problem. But better yet, one can read or reread (as I have done many times) Schaeffer’s own books and watch his two film series (the ten-part, “How Should We Then Live?” and five-part, “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” which are both available on DVD). Indeed, Schaeffer did live an “authentic” life-a life of piety, truth, and courage-worthy of our attention and of our thanksgiving to the triune God Schaeffer served.

Ronald Wilson Reagan pictured with Dr. C. Everett Koop

(normal size jpg)

(high resolution jpg) High resolution version (11,426,583 Bytes)

Description:
The photograph is signed by President Ronald Reagan with the inscription “To Chick Koop, With Best Wishes.” Chick, from chicken coop, was the nickname Koop gained will attending Dartmouth College in the mid-1930s. Koop maintained a cordial relationship with President Reagan, despite his disappointment over Reagan’s refusal to address the growing AIDS epidemic.
 

Open letters to President Obama displayed here on www.thedailyhatch.org

I have been writing letters to President Obama almost all of 2012. I have received several responses from the White House but none of the responses have been personal responses from the President.

Below is a letter I wrote to the President and a form letter response that I got followed by links to other letters I have written him.

KIreland.jpg 

Science Matters #2: Former supermodel Kathy Ireland tells Mike Huckabee about how she became pro-life after reading what the science books have to say.

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

I wanted to talk to you today about your views on abortion. Everyone remembers Kathy Ireland from her Sports Illustrated days and actually she has became a very successful business person.  However, I wanted to talk about her pro-life views.

_____________

Back on April 27, 2009 Fox News ran a story by Hollie McKay(Supermodel Kathy Ireland Lashes Out Against Pro Choice,”) on  Ireland.

It’s no secret that the majority of Hollywood stars are strong advocates for a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to terminate a pregnancy, however former “Sports Illustrated” supermodel-turned-entrepreneur-turned-author Kathy Ireland has gone against the grain of the glitterati and spoken out against abortion.

“My entire life I was pro-choice — who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science,” Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book “Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity.”

“What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there.”

However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life.

“I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby. Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time,” Ireland argued. “I’ve also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didn’t want to be pro-life, but this is not a woman’s rights issue but a human rights issue.”

My good friend Dr. Kevin R. Henke is a scientist and also an atheistic evolutionist. I had a lot of discussions with Kevin over religious views. I remember going over John 7:17 with him one day. It says:

John 7:17 (Amplified Bible)

17If any man desires to do His will (God’s pleasure), he will know (have the needed illumination to recognize, and can tell for himself) whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking from Myself and of My own accord and on My own authority.

I challenged Kevin to read a chapter a day of the Book of John and pray to God and ask God, “Dear God, if you are there then reveal yourself to me, and I pledge to serve you the rest of my life.”

Kevin did that and he even wrote down the thoughts that came to his mind and sent it to me and these thoughts filled a notebook.

Kevin did not become a Christian, but I am still praying for him. I do respect Kevin because he is an honest man. Interestingly enough he  told me that he was pro-life because the unborn baby has all the genetic code at  the time of conception that they will have for the rest of their life. Below are some other comments by other scientists:

Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic): “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School): “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania): “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “the Father of Modern Genetics” (University of Descartes, Paris): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

__

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

_______________

I actually mailed this to President Obama about a week ago and got this email back:

The White House, Washington
 

 

April 16, 2012

Dear Everette:

Thank you for taking the time to share your views on abortion.  This is a heart-wrenching issue, and I appreciate your input and thoughts.

I am committed to making my Administration the most open and transparent in history, and part of delivering on that promise is hearing from people like you.  I take seriously your opinions and respect your point of view on this issue.  Please know that your concerns will be on my mind in the days ahead.

Thank you, again, for writing.  I encourage you to visit www.WhiteHouse.gov to learn more about my Administration or to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

An open letter to President Obama (Part 65)

Leader Cantor On CNN Responding To President Obama’s State of the Union Address Uploaded by EricCantor on Jan 25, 2012 ______________ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I […]

 

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response March 7, 2011 (part 3)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on March 7, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

 

An open letter to President Obama (Part 58) “Our national debt threatens our security”

Liam Fox Issues a Warning to America Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Feb 28, 2012 Britain’s Liam Fox has a warning for America: Fix the debt problem now or suffer the consequences of less power on the world stage. The former U.K. secretary of state for defense visited Heritage to explain why the America’s debt is […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response Jan 27, 2011 (part 2)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on January 27, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response Jan 25, 2011 (part 1)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on January 25, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 48 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

An open letter to President Obama (Part 48 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12) Rep Michael Burgess response Uploaded by MichaelCBurgessMD on Jan 25, 2012 This week Dr. Burgess provides an update from Washington and responds to President Obama’s State of the Union address. President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012 […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 47, A response to your budget)

Corker Says President’s 2012 Budget Proposal Shows “Lack of Urgency” on Spending Uploaded by senatorcorker on Feb 14, 2011 In remarks on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., expressed disappointment in President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, saying it displayed a “lack of urgency” to get federal spending under control. Corker has introduced […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 1 of State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012 Feb 6, 2012 President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying […]

An open letter to President Obama

  January 25, 2012 President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on […]

 

Christopher Hitchens’ debate with Douglas Wilson (Part 15)

Christopher Hitchens Owns the Christian Book Expo 2009

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2009

Christopher Hitchens shares the panel with William Lane Craig, Douglas Wilson, James Denison and Lee Strobel at the Christian Book Expo 2009.

_______________________________

Douglas Wilson

This relates to the second point, which concerns evolved morality and the

past. When dealing

with people whose moral judgments have differed from yours, do you regard them as “immoral”

or as “less evolved?” The rhetoric of your book, your tone in these exchanges, and your recent

dancing on the grave of the late Jerry Falwell would all seem to indicate the former. In your

choice of words, the people you denounce are to be

blamed. The word fulminations comes to

mind. You write like a witty but acerbic tenth-century archbishop with a bad case of the gout. But

this is truly an odd thing to do if “morality” is a simple derivative of evolution. Are you filled with

fierce indignation that the koala bear hasn’t evolved ears that stick flat to the side of his head like

they are supposed to? Are you wroth over the fact that clams don’t have legs yet? When you

notice that the bears at the zoo continue to suck on their paws, do you stop to remonstrate with

them?

Your notion of morality, and the evolution it rode in on, can only concern itself with what

is. But

morality as Christians understand it, and the kind you

surreptitiously draw upon, is concerned

with

ought. David Hume showed us that we cannot successfully derive ought from is. Have you

discovered the error in his reasoning? It is clear from how you defend your ideas of “morality”

that you have not done so. You are a gifted writer, and you have a flair for polemical voltage. But

strip it all away, and what do you have underneath? You believe yourself to live in a universe

where there is no such thing as any fixed

ought or ought not. But God has gifted you with a

remarkable ability to denounce what

ought not to be. And so, because you reject him, you have

great sermons but no way of ever coming up with a text. When people start to notice the absence

of texts, the absence of warrant, the absence of

reasons, you adjust and compensate with

rhetorical embellishment and empurpled prose. You are like the minister in the story who wrote

in the margin of his notes, “Argument weak. Shout here.”

Your invitation to us to try to “name one moral action . . . that could not have been performed or

spoken by an atheist” shows that you continue to miss the point. We have every reason to believe

that such atheists, performing such deeds, will be as unable as you have been to give an account

of

why one deed should be seen as good and another as evil. You say you have no alternative but

to call sociopaths and psychopaths “evil.” But you surely do have an alternative. Why not just call

them “different”?

A fixed standard, grounded in the character of God, allows us to define evil, but this brings with

it the possibility of forgiveness. You reject forgiveness, but at the end of the day this means that

you don’t believe there is anything that needs forgiveness. This means you have destroyed the

idea of evil, regardless of what you might “call” behaviors that happen to be inconvenient for you.

Related posts:

Christopher Hitchens’ view on abortion may surprise you

Christopher Hitchens – Against Abortion Uploaded by BritishNeoCon on Dec 2, 2010 An issue Christopher doesn’t seem to have addressed much in his life. He doesn’t explicitly say that he is against abortion in this segment, but that he does believe that the ‘unborn child’ is a real concept. ___________________________ I was suprised when I […]

Christopher Hitchens discusses Ron Paul in 3-2-11 inteview

Max Brantley in the Arkansas Times Blog reports that Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at his views. In the above clip you will see Chistopher Hitchens discuss Ron Paul’s views. In the clip below you will find Ron Paul’s latest commercial. Below is a short […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 3)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 07 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death:   Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust   DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 08 Author and […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 2)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 04 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 05 Author and speaker Christopher […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 1)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 01 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust Author and speaker Christopher Hitchens, a leader of an aggressive form of atheism that eventually […]

More about the historical characters mentioned in the movie “Lincoln” by Steven Spielberg (Part 6) “Mary Todd Lincoln”

I have written a lot about Abraham Lincoln in the past as you can tell from the “related posts” noted below. Most of my posts were concerning the movie “The Conspirator” which is one of my favorite movies.  I enjoyed reading about all the historical people involved with Lincoln. Boston Corbett is the man who shot Booth. Louis Weichmann was originally a suspect but he later became one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution.  John Wilkes Booth was the first man to kill an American President. Louis Powell attempted to kill Secretary of State Seward.  Mary Surratt was in the center of the conspiracy we are told, but is that true? (I believe the evidence shows that it was true that she was guilty of that.)

Mary Todd Lincoln

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Mary Todd Lincoln
First Lady of the United States
In office
March 4, 1861 – April 15, 1865
Preceded by Harriet Lane
Succeeded by Eliza McCardle Johnson
Personal details
Born Mary Ann Todd
(1818-12-13)December 13, 1818
Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America
Died July 16, 1882(1882-07-16) (aged 63)
Springfield, Illinois, United States of America
Spouse(s) Abraham Lincoln
Relations Robert Smith Todd (Father)
Eliza Parker Todd (Mother)
Children Robert Todd Lincoln
Edward Lincoln
Willie Lincoln
Tad Lincoln
Religion Presbyterian

Mary Ann (née Todd) Lincoln (December 13, 1818 – July 16, 1882) was the wife of the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, and was First Lady of the United States from 1861 to 1865.

A member of a large, wealthy Kentucky family, Mary was well educated. After living in the Todd House and a finishing school during her teens, she moved to Springfield, Illinois, where she lived for a time with her married sister Elizabeth Edwards. Mary was courted by Stephen Douglas before she married Abraham Lincoln. Later they debated in their campaigns for the presidency. She and Lincoln had four sons together, only one of whom outlived her. Their home of about fifteen years still stands in Springfield.

Mary Lincoln suffered from migraine headaches, may have had bipolar disorder and had other severe illness through much of her adult life. She supported her husband throughout his presidency and was next to him when he was fatally shot.

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Life before the White House

Born in Lexington, Kentucky as the fourth of seven children[1], Mary was the daughter of Robert Smith Todd, a banker, and Elizabeth (Parker) Todd. Her family were slaveholders and Mary was raised in comfort and refinement.[2] When Mary was six, her mother died. Two years later, her father married Elizabeth “Betsy” Humphreys; they had nine children together.[1][3] Mary had a difficult relationship with her stepmother.

From 1832, Mary and her family lived in what is now known as the Mary Todd Lincoln House, an elegant 14-room residence in Lexington.[4] From her father’s two marriages, Mary had a total of 15 siblings, nine of them half siblings.

Mary’s paternal great-grandfather, David Levi Todd, was born in County Longford, Ireland, and emigrated through Pennsylvania to Kentucky. Her great-great maternal grandfather Samuel McDowell was born in Scotland, and emigrated to and died in Pennsylvania. Other Todd ancestors came from England.[5]

Mary was sent at an early age to attend a finishing school owned by Madame Mantelle, where the curriculum concentrated on French and literature. She learned to speak French fluently, studied dance, drama, music and social graces. By the age of 20, she was regarded as witty and gregarious, with a grasp of politics. Like her family, she was a Whig.[6]

Mary began living with her sister Elizabeth Porter (née Todd) Edwards in Springfield, Illinois in October 1839. Elizabeth, married to Ninian W. Edwards, son of a former governor, served as Mary’s guardian at the time.[7] Mary was popular among the gentry of Springfield, and though she was courted by the rising young lawyer and Democratic Party politician Stephen A. Douglas and others, she chose Abraham Lincoln, a fellow Whig, from their courtship.[6] They married on November 4, 1842, at the Edwards’ home in Springfield. She was 23 and he was 33.

Lincoln and Douglas eventually became political rivals in the great Lincoln-Douglas debates for a seat representing Illinois in the United States Senate in 1858. Although Douglas successfully secured the seat when elected by the Illinois legislature, Lincoln became famous for his position on slavery, which generated national support for him.

Girlhood home alt text

Historic home of Todd family, Lexington, KY

While Lincoln pursued his increasingly successful career as a Springfield lawyer, Mary supervised their growing household. Their house, where they resided from 1844 until 1861, still stands in Springfield, and has been designated the Lincoln Home National Historic Site.

Their sons, all born in Springfield, were:

Of these four sons, only Robert and Tad survived to adulthood, and only Robert outlived his mother.

During Lincoln’s years as an Illinois circuit lawyer, Mary Lincoln was often left alone for months at a time to raise their children and run the household. Mary supported her husband socially and politically, not least when Lincoln was elected president in 1860.

[edit] White House years

During her White House years, Mary Lincoln faced many personal difficulties generated by political divisions within the nation. Her family was from a border state where slavery was permitted.[8] In Kentucky, siblings not infrequently fought each other in the Civil War[9] and Mary’s family was no exception. Several of her half-brothers served in the Confederate Army and were killed in action, and one brother served the Confederacy as a surgeon.[10]

Mary staunchly supported her husband in his quest to save the Union and maintained a strict loyalty to his policies. It was a challenge for Mary, a “westerner”, to serve as her husband’s First Lady in Washington, D.C., a political center dominated by eastern and southern culture. Lincoln was regarded as the first “western” president, and Mary’s manners were often criticized as coarse and pretentious.[11][12] It was difficult for her to negotiate White House social responsibilities and rivalries,[13] spoils-seeking solicitors,[14] and baiting newspapers[12] in a climate of high national intrigue in Civil War Washington.

Mary Lincoln suffered from severe headaches, described as migraines, throughout her adult life[15] as well as protracted depression.[16] During her White House years, she also suffered a head injury in a carriage accident, after which her headaches seemed to become more frequent.[17] A history of mood swings, fierce temper, public outbursts throughout Lincoln’s presidency, as well as excessive spending, has led some historians and psychologists to speculate that Mary suffered from bipolar disorder.[18][19]

During her years in the White House, she often visited hospitals around Washington to give flowers and fruit to wounded soldiers. She took the time to write letters for them to send to their loved ones.[20][1] From time to time, she accompanied Lincoln on military visits to the field. Responsible for hosting many social functions, she has often been blamed by historians for spending too much on the White House. She reportedly felt that it was important to the maintenance of prestige of the Presidency and the Union during the Civil War.[1]

[edit] Widow and later life

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln. From left to right: Henry Rathbone, Clara Harris, Mary Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth

In April 1865, as the Civil War came to an end, Mrs. Lincoln expected to continue as the First Lady of a nation at peace. On April 14, 1865, as she sat with her husband to watch the comic play Our American Cousin at Ford’s Theatre, President Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. Mrs. Lincoln accompanied her wounded husband across the street to the Petersen House, where Lincoln’s Cabinet was summoned. Their son Robert sat with Lincoln throughout the night, until he died the following day at 7:22 am. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton ordered Mary from the room as she was so unhinged with grief.[17]

Afterward, she received messages of condolence from all over the world, many of which she attempted to answer personally. To Queen Victoria she wrote:

“I have received the letter which Your Majesty has had the kindness to write., I am deeply grateful for this expression of tender sympathy, coming as they do, from a heart which from its own sorrow, can appreciate the intense grief I now endure.”

Victoria had suffered the loss of her husband, Prince Albert, four years earlier.[21]

As a widow, Mrs. Lincoln returned to Illinois and lived in Chicago with her sons. In 1868, Mrs. Lincoln’s former modiste and confidante, Elizabeth Keckley, published Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House. She had been born into slavery, purchased her freedom and that of her son, and become a successful businesswoman in Washington, DC. Although this book provides valuable insight into the character and life of Mary Todd Lincoln, at the time the former First Lady (and much of the public and press) regarded it as a breach of friendship and confidentiality. Keckley was widely criticized for her book, especially as her editor had published letters from Mary Lincoln to her.[22][23]

In an act approved by a low margin on July 14, 1870, the United States Congress granted Mrs. Lincoln a life pension in the amount of $3,000 a year.[24] Mary had lobbied hard for such a pension, writing numerous letters to Congress and urging patrons such as Simon Cameron to petition on her behalf. She insisted that she deserved a pension just as much as the widows of soldiers, as she portrayed her husband as a fallen commander.[25] At the time it was unprecedented for widows of presidents, and Mary Lincoln had alienated many congressmen, making it difficult for her to gain approval.[1]

The death of her son Thomas (Tad) in July 1871, following the death of two of her other sons and her husband, led to Mary Lincoln’s suffering an overpowering grief and depression.[17] Her surviving son, Robert Lincoln, a rising young Chicago lawyer, was alarmed at his mother’s increasingly erratic behavior. In March 1875, during a visit to Jacksonville, Florida, Mary became unshakably convinced that Robert was deathly ill. She traveled to Chicago to see him, but found he was not sick.

In Chicago she told her son that someone had tried to poison her on the train and that a “wandering Jew” had taken her pocketbook but would return it later.[17]During her stay in Chicago with her son, Mary spent large amounts of money on items she never used, such as draperies and elaborate dresses; she wore only black after her husband’s assassination. She would walk around the city with $56,000 in government bonds sewn into her petticoats. Despite this large amount of money and the $3,000 a year stipend from Congress, Mrs. Lincoln had an irrational fear of poverty. After she nearly jumped out of a window to escape a non-existent fire, her son determined that she should be institutionalized.[17]

On May 20, 1875, he committed her to a private asylum in Batavia, Illinois.[26] Three months after being committed to Bellevue Place, Mary Lincoln devised her escape. She smuggled letters to her lawyer, James B. Bradwell, and his wife Myra Bradwell, who was not only her friend but a feminist lawyer and fellow spiritualist. She also wrote to the editor of the Chicago Times. Soon, the public embarrassments that Robert had hoped to avoid were looming, and his character and motives were in question, as he controlled his mother’s finances. The director of Bellevue at Mary’s trial had assured the jury she would benefit from treatment at his facility. In the face of potentially damaging publicity, he declared her well enough to go to Springfield to live with her sister Elizabeth Edwards as she desired.[27]

Mary Lincoln was released into the custody of her sister in Springfield. In 1876 she was declared competent to manage her own affairs. After the court proceedings, Mary Lincoln was so enraged that she attempted suicide. She went to the hotel pharmacist and ordered enough laudanum to kill herself, but he realized her intent and gave her a placebo.[17] The earlier committal proceedings had resulted in Mary being profoundly estranged from her son Robert, and they did not reconcile until shortly before her death.[1]

Mrs. Lincoln spent the next four years traveling throughout Europe and took up residence in Pau, France. Her final years were marked by declining health. She suffered from severe cataracts that reduced her eyesight. This condition may have contributed to her increasing susceptibility to falls. In 1879, she suffered spinal cord injuries in a fall from a stepladder.[1]

[edit] Death

Mary Todd Lincoln’s crypt

During the early 1880s, Mary Lincoln was confined to the Springfield, Illinois residence of her sister Elizabeth Edwards. She died there on July 16, 1882, aged sixty-three. She was interred in the Lincoln Tomb in Oak Ridge Cemetery in Springfield alongside her husband.[28]

[edit] Representations in other media

Biographies have been written about Mary Lincoln as well as her husband. Barbara Hambly‘s The Emancipator’s Wife (2005) is considered a well-researched historical novel that provides context for her use of over-the-counter drugs containing alcohol and opium, which were frequently given to women of her era.

Mary Lincoln has been portrayed in film, including by Mary Tyler Moore in the 1988 television mini-series Lincoln, Sally Field in Steven Spielberg‘s 2012 film Lincoln, starring Daniel Day Lewis;[29] Penelope Ann Miller in Saving Lincoln (2012), and Mary Elizabeth Winstead in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012), set during the Civil War.

______________

“Friedman Friday” Milton Friedman’s best 10 quotes

Milton Friedman – Public Housing

Uploaded by on May 6, 2011

Professor Friedman looks at the destination of another road paved with good intentions.

_______________

10 great quotes from Milton Friedman below:

Nov 29, 2011

10 Of The Best Economics Quotes From Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman was an extraordinary Nobel Prize-winning economist whose ideas helped underpin modern conservative economic theory. His contributions to economics and the conservative movement cannot be underestimated. Sadly, Milton Friedman passed away a little more than five years ago at the ripe old age of 94. Although Friedman is no longer with us, his words, his ideas, and his legacy live on. In honor of Friedman, here are some of his best quotations.

10) “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

9) “I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.”

8) “The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.”

7) “When everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. That is why buildings in the Soviet Union — like public housing in the United States — look decrepit within a year or two of their construction…”

6) “There is all the difference in the world, however, between two kinds of assistance through government that seem superficially similar: first, 90 percent of us agreeing to impose taxes on ourselves in order to help the bottom 10 percent, and second, 80 percent voting to impose taxes on the top 10 percent to help the bottom 10 percent — William Graham Sumner’s famous example of B and C decided what D shall do for A. The first may be wise or unwise, an effective or ineffective way to help the disadvantaged — but it is consistent with belief in both equality of opportunity and liberty. The second seeks equality of outcome and is entirely antithetical to liberty.”

5) “When the United States was formed in 1776, it took 19 people on the farm to produce enough food for 20 people. So most of the people had to spend their time and efforts on growing food. Today, it’s down to 1% or 2% to produce that food. Now just consider the vast amount of supposed unemployment that was produced by that. But there wasn’t really any unemployment produced. What happened was that people who had formerly been tied up working in agriculture were freed by technological developments and improvements to do something else. That enabled us to have a better standard of living and a more extensive range of products.”

4) “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.”

3) “Inflation is taxation without legislation.”

2) “The great danger to the consumer is the monopoly — whether private or governmental. His most effective protection is free competition at home and free trade throughout the world. The consumer is protected from being exploited by one seller by the existence of another seller from whom he can buy and who is eager to sell to him. Alternative sources of supply protect the consumer far more effectively than all the Ralph Naders of the world.”

1) “(T)he supporters of tariffs treat it as self-evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number — for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again, or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs — jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume