Let’s use an analogy to explain what I mean. Imagine you were playing a game of chess and your opponent openly stated that he wanted you to move your rook to a certain point on the board.
If your IQ was above room temperature, you would probably be suspicious that he wasn’t trying to help you win the game.
Well, the same thing happens in fiscal policy. I quoted the Hill newspaper last year when some Democrats admitted that their top political goal was to seduce the GOP into a tax increase.
The Democrats’ counter-strategy is a bit more subtle, but has essentially been to find ways to make it very uncomfortable for Republicans to maintain such a rigid anti-tax orthodoxy — to ultimately force Republicans to break their anti-tax pledges and badly splinter their party. That’s what the Buffett Rule is about; that why Dems insist they won’t dismantle the so-called “sequester” — big cuts to defense and even to Medicare — unless Republicans agree to tackle deficits in a balanced way, i.e. by supporting significant new tax revenues. The results have been mixed. They’ve won a small number of GOP votes here and there, and vulnerable members are nowadays more likely to trash or dismiss Grover Norquist in the press than they were last year. But at a very high level within the Democratic Party, there’s a recognition that breaking the GOP on taxes is an absolutely crucial strategic imperative for defending safety net programs over the long term.
That’s a pretty clear statement. We have folks on the left who say they want higher taxes both to prop up big government and to cause internal damage to the GOP.
Unless, of course, they’re motivated by a belief in bigger government (high likely) or a suicidal desire to harm their own electoral prospects (highly unlikely since even I don’t think GOPers are that stupid).
____________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 54)
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. When that happens then you have one thing you can hold over his head and that is the debt ceiling.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02), a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, made the following comments today regarding the House of Representative’s vote to increase the statutory limit on the national debt:
“I applaud the efforts of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, and Budget Chairman Ryan over the last month. Every dollar saved under the plan approved tonight is a result of their steadfast advocacy on behalf of the American People. While the final legislation is far from perfect and while many of us would prefer the more fundamental reforms found in the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance Act,’ this compromise cuts a dollar of spending for every new dollar of debt. That is a significant accomplishment given that Democrats—who wanted new taxes and no spending reductions—outnumbered Republicans two to one at the negotiating table.
“During this debate, I voted for two separate proposals that would significantly cut future spending, put our nation on firmer financial footing, and avoid a potentially catastrophic default. Each was killed by Senate Democrats.
“I am pleased that a default has been avoided as a result of the vote tonight. However, I was unable to support this legislation because, after a careful reading of the bill, I fear it could ultimately result in devastating and unjustified cuts to our national security. This bill, unlike previous proposals I supported, has a weak firewall against potentially destructive defense cuts. To be sure, there are savings to be found in the Pentagon’s budget, and I have already voted this year to trim wasteful and unnecessary defense spending. But this bill goes much too far. The legislation would use our defense budget as an insurance policy to guarantee savings in the event that the special joint committee, which this legislation creates, fails to achieve cuts in other areas of the government bureaucracy.
“Of course we lack a crystal ball to know how it will play out, but my best judgment is that the chances the special joint committee will fail are too high to risk our national defense, which is one of few legitimate government functions enumerated in the Constitution. If required, the cuts would be so deep as to affect the readiness of our troops around the world—a risk I am not willing to take. As important as deficit reduction is, what good is it for a country that is unable to adequately defend the freedom and liberty it cherishes? Certainly there are other places in the massive federal bureaucracy that are more deserving of deep cuts.
“I reject the idea that we need not worry about these cuts because Washington will never let them happen. To make that suggestion is to say that the legislation does not actually do what we have said it does.
“In the end, I hope that the special joint committee will find the spending cuts that it is charged to identify, and I look forward to reviewing the product of its work. Our prayer is that the special joint committee members will do their jobs, thereby ensuring that the damaging military cuts that could occur never see the light of day.
“On the broader question of restoring fiscal responsibility, our work has just begun. This has been a long and convoluted process, but the takeaway is simple: in a short period of time, House Republicans have successfully changed the conversation in Washington from ‘how do we spend more’ to ‘how do we spend less.’ Even so, much work remains, and only a sustained, dedicated effort will truly change the spending culture in Washington.”
# # #
NOTE: Congress debated how best to raise the debt limit for many months. Members considered numerous proposals, and the House of Representatives and the Senate each took several votes on the issue. On May 31, Rep. Martha Roby voted against President Obama’s original request for a clean debtincrease that would expand the government’s ability to borrow money without placing any restrictions on future spending. She saidthat any debt limit increase should be accompanied by “significant” spending cuts. On July 22, Roby voted in favor of the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act,” referringto the “strong” measure as her “preference.” The Democratic Senaterejected the measure. With the debt deadline looming, Roby supported Speaker Boehner’sproposal on July 29, notingthat it was “far from perfect” but that it cut a dollar of spending for every dollar of additional debt and included no new taxes. Again, the Senaterejected that measure. On July 28, Roby opposed Sen. Reid’s proposal, which she pointed outincluded an unacceptable budget gimmick that would not result in real savings. (The Senatealso rejectedthe Reid proposal.) That vote was followed by the events described in the press release above.
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, […]
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, […]
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 […]
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. […]
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 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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
The fifty most significant games of all-time? That is what the article said. I don’t have time to go through all of them but I have listed a few from that list below.
Yes, there is a most lopsided victory in college football and it belongs to the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets.
This record is arguably more unbreakable than anything out there although I personally am not impressed with this particular statistic as some other may be.
Still, Georgia Tech walloped Cumberland College (who did not field an official team that year) by a final score of 222-0 on October 7, 1916.
Craig James and Eric Dickerson were known as the “Pony Express” and they were as dynamic as any backfield duo in the history of college football.
However, since SMU’s football program was given the “death penalty” for numerous NCAA violations, the program has not been the same.
The entire 1987 season was cancelled for SMU and they also were banned for two seasons from the postseason. As far as how their final game went against Arkansas, the Razorbacks thumped them 41-0.
The 1999 Fiesta Bowl was the first ever BCS National Championship game and it featured the two top ranked teams in the country between Tennessee and Florida State (amazing how college football is the only true sport that guarantees you the two best).
The Seminoles have had their fair share of disappointments and struggles in the BCS (1-5), and they lost to the Vols 23-16.
Tennessee’s Tee Martin and Peerless Price stole the show and the victory for Tennessee was their sixth national championship.
In his book The New Reagan Revolution, Michael Reagan examined six great economic crossroads of the 20th and 21st centuries. These six critical junctures in the history of the United States serve as economic laboratories to test two contrasting economic theories. One theory consistently produced economic expansion and sustained growth. The other theory invariably produced failure and misery. Here are Michael Reagan findings:
1. The “Forgotten Depression” of January 1920. During the last year of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, the economy nosedived. GNP fell 17 percent; unemployment soared from 4 to almost 12 percent. This was the “Forgotten Depression” of 1920. Wilson’s successor, Warren G. Harding, came into office and immediately cut tax rates for all income brackets, slashed federal spending, and balanced the budget. Long before the world ever heard of Ronald Reagan, Harding practiced “Reaganomics.”
“President Harding applied the principles of Reaganomics,” Michael Reagan observed, “even though Ronald Reagan was at that time a nine-year-old boy living in Dixon, Illinois. Harding was not following an economic theory. He was following common sense. He treated the federal budget as you would treat the family budget: When times are tough, cut spending and stay out of debt. Harding also treated his fellow citizens with commonsense compassion: If folks are going through tough times, government should ease their burden and cut their taxes.”
The Harding recovery was astonishingly rapid, beginning just half a year into his presidency. Unemployment fell to 6.7 percent by 1922, and to 2.4 percent by 1923. Harding’s successor, Calvin Coolidge, maintained Harding’s program of low tax rates, balanced budgets, and limited government. The Harding-Coolidge era of prosperity became known as “the Roaring Twenties”—a time of soaring prosperity, stable prices, and boundless optimism.
Obvious conclusion based on the evidence: Reaganomics works.
2. The Great Depression. Coolidge was succeeded by Herbert Hoover. In the eighth month of Hoover’s presidency, the stock market crashed—the infamous Crash of 1929. Many factors led to the Great Depression, but the Crash was the precipitating event. Hoover had failed to learn the lessons of the Harding-Coolidge years, so he responded by raising taxes (hiking the top marginal rate from 25 to 63 percent), imposing protectionism (the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act), and boosting government spending by 47 percent, driving America deep into debt. Hoover’s actions worsened the Depression. A defeated Herbert Hoover bequeathed a ruined economy to Franklin Delano Roosevelt
FDR took office at a time when 25 percent of the nation’s workforce was unemployed. He, too, ignored the lessons of the “Forgotten Depression,” and doubled down on Hoover’s failed tax-and-spend policies, applying the economic theory known as Keynesianism (after British economist John Maynard Keynes). The Keynes-FDR approach involved deficit spending, soak-the-rich tax policies, and big-government make-work programs (the New Deal). FDR and a compliant Congress hiked personal and corporate income tax rates, estate taxes, and excise taxes.
Michael Reagan wrote, “From 1937 to 1939, the stock market lost almost half its value, car sales fell by one-third, and business failures increased by one-half. From 1932 to 1939, the U.S. racked up more debt than in all the preceding 150 years of America’s existence. By early 1939, as the Great Depression was in its tenth year, unemployment again climbed past the 20 percent mark.”
Many Americans credit FDR with “getting America through the Depression.” In reality, FDR’s policies prolonged the Depression. In a time of catastrophic unemployment, Roosevelt made it prohibitively expensive to hire people, making a terrible human tragedy even worse. While thousands of U.S banks failed under FDR’s policies, across the border in Canada, not one bank failed—because Canadian banks were not hamstrung by FDR’s foolish over-regulation. In FDR’s Folly, historian Jim Powell questions the disturbing FDR legacy:
Why did New Dealers make it more expensive for employers to hire people? Why did FDR’s Justice Department file some 150 lawsuits threatening big employers? Why did New Deal policies discourage private investment without which private employment was unlikely to revive? Why so many policies to push up the cost of living? Why did New Dealers destroy food while people went hungry? To what extent did New Deal labor laws penalize blacks? Why did New Dealers break up the strongest banks? . . . Why didn’t New Deal public works projects bring about a recovery? Why was so much New Deal relief spending channeled away from the poorest people?
In May 1939, a demoralized and defeated Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s treasury secretary, told the House Ways and Means Committee, “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”
Many people mistakenly believe that World War II lifted America out of the Great Depression. Not true. What WWII did was take 12 million men out of the workforce and send them into war, which ended unemployment. But all the other signs of a damaged economy remained during the war: low stock prices, depressed private investment, and depressed consumer demand.
Roosevelt and his successor, Harry Truman, had a post-war plan to impose an even bigger Second New Deal after the war. Fortunately, Congress refused, and chose instead to cut taxes and cut spending—the same commonsense “Reaganomics” approach that had produced prosperity during the 1920s. The result: a post-war economic boom from the late 1940s through the 1950s. Had FDR and Truman gotten their way, the country would have slipped right back into recession if not a second Great Depression.
Obvious conclusion based on the evidence: Keynesianomics fails, prolonging economic hardship and misery, while Reaganomics works again.
3. The Recession of 1960 and 1961. When John F. Kennedy came into office, he faced a jobless figure of 7.1 percent. Wanting the economy to keep up with the growing workforce, JFK addressed the Economic Club of New York in December 1962 and proposed a bold notion: “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. . . . The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
Those are the words of John F. Kennedy—and he was preaching Reaganomics. Kennedy was assassinated less than a year later, but his successor, Lyndon Johnson, lobbied hard for the JFK tax cuts, and he signed them into law in 1964. As a result of JFK’s Reaganesque economic plan, the economy experienced a dramatic 5 percent expansion and personal income increased by 7 percent. Gross national product grew from $628 billion to $672 billion, corporate profits by an explosive 21 percent, auto production rose by 22 percent, steel production grew by 6 percent, and unemployment plummeted to 4.2 percent—an eight-year low. The Kennedy-Johnson tax rate cuts produced a sustained economic expansion for nearly a decade.
Obvious conclusion based on the evidence: Reaganomics works again.
4. The Recession of the 1970s. This recession began in November 1973 under Nixon and ended (technically) in March 1975 under Gerald Ford—a 16-month recession. According to the graphs and charts of the economists, real GDP was on the rise by the spring of 1975, yet unemployment and inflation remained painfully high throughout rest of the 1970s. Americans continue to suffer joblessness amid spiraling prices after the recession officially ended.
In 1976, Ronald Reagan narrowly lost the primary race against Gerald Ford. Reagan was convinced that he knew how to solve the long and painful recession of the 1970s, but he was forced to watch from the sidelines as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter—two befuddled, clueless Keynesians!—battled each other for the White House. On October 8, 1976, at the height of the presidential race between Carter and Ford, Reagan outlined the principles of Reaganomics in a syndicated newspaper column entitled “Tax Cuts and Increased Revenue.” He wrote:
Warren Harding did it. John Kennedy did it. But Jimmy Carter and President Ford aren’t talking about it. The ‘it’ that Harding and Kennedy had in common was to cut the income tax. In both cases, federal revenues went up instead of down. . . . Since the idea worked under both Democratic and Republican administrations before, who’s to say it couldn’t work again?”
Reagan had majored in economics at Eureka College and had spent years studying the great free market economists such as Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations), Friedrich Hayek (The Road to Serfdom), and Milton Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom). While Reagan’s opponents ignorantly wrote him off as an “amiable dunce,” it is clear that Reagan correctly and insightfully diagnosed the ailing economy of the 1970s. Unfortunately, Reagan would have to wait more than four years for the opportunity to put his prescription into practice.
Obvious conclusion based on the evidence: Keynesianism fails again.
5. The Jimmy Carter Stagflation Recession of 1980. After Jimmy Carter was inaugurated in January 1977, he inflicted the failed FDR-style Keynesian approach on the country—an approach which says the federal government can spend its way to prosperity. The result of Carter’s policies was an economic disaster called “stagflation”—slow economic growth coupled with the misery of rampant inflation and high unemployment.
By the 1980 election, America under Carter was in a full-blown recession. The American people had suffered years of double-digit interest rates, double-digit inflation, and double-digit unemployment, plus blocks-long lines at the gas station. Ronald Reagan defeated Carter in a landslide. Newsweek observed: “When Ronald Reagan steps into the White House . . . he will inherit the most dangerous economic crisis since Franklin Roosevelt took office 48 years ago.”
Reagan moved confidently and quickly to slash tax rates and domestic spending. Under his leadership, the top marginal tax rate dropped from 70 percent to 28 percent. Michael Reagan described the results:
Tax cuts generated 4 million jobs in 1983 alone and 16 million jobs over the course of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Unemployment among African-Americans dropped dramatically, from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. . . .
The inflation rate fell from 13.5 percent in 1980 . . . to 3.2 percent in 1983. . . .
The Reagan tax cuts nearly doubled federal revenue. After his 25 percent across-the-board tax rate cuts went into effect, receipts from both individual and corporate income taxes rose dramatically. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, revenue from individual income taxes went from $244.1 billion in 1980 to $445.7 billion in 1989, an increase of over 82 percent. Revenue from corporate income taxes went from $64.6 billion to $103.3 billion, a 60 percent jump.
This was the fulfillment of the “paradoxical truth” that John F. Kennedy spoke of in his 1962 speech: “Cutting taxes now . . . can bring a budget surplus.” Both JFK and Ronald Reagan predicted that lower tax rates would generate more revenue. This “paradoxical truth” worked exactly as predicted.
At a White House press conference in 1981, President Reagan took reporters to school, explaining that the principles of Reaganomics have been known for centuries. Lower tax rates invariably bring more money into the treasury, he explained, “because of the almost instant stimulant to the economy.” This principle, Reagan added, “goes back at least, I know, as far as the fourteenth century, when a Moslem philosopher named Ibn Khaldun said, ‘In the beginning of the dynasty, great tax revenues were gained from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, small tax revenues were gained from large assessments.’”
The principles of Reaganomics have been proved true—and Keynesian theory has been exposed as a fraud once more.
6. The Obama Recession. To be fair, what I call “The Obama Recession” actually began under George W. Bush, triggered by the collapse of the housing bubble. I think it’s fair to call it The Obama Recession because, when Barack Obama took office, he threw $814 billion of stimulus money at the recession (plus billions more in corporate bailouts, “Cash for Clunkers,” Solyndra-style green energy boondoggles, and other prime-the-pump schemes). He promised to jump-start the economy and hold unemployment below 8 percent. This was weapons-grade Keynesianism, practiced on a scale never before witnessed in human history. After spending so much money on the “cure,” Obama now owned that recession.
If Keynesian theory works at all, the Obama stimulus plan should have completely turned the economy around. But the stimulus plan—officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—not only failed to make a splash, it didn’t make a ripple. Even after the government pumped nearly a trillion dollars of borrowed money into the economy, unemployment nudged up toward the 10 percent mark. Today, unemployment is officially below 9 percent—but the actual jobless rate is much higher.
In 2010, the Population Reference Bureau calculated the workforce to be at just over 157 million people. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there are 131 million jobs in America. That would leave 26 million people jobless—or about 16 percent of the total workforce. But it gets worse: Many of those jobs are just part-time jobs, and many people hold two or more of those jobs, so the actual jobless number is certainly far higher than 16 percent—maybe 20 percent or higher.
Obvious conclusion based on the evidence: Keynesianomics fails catastrophically.
Unfortunately, the high priests of the Keynesian religion refuse to see the light. President Obama clings to his delusional Keynesian faith, insisting that all we have to do is throw more money at the economy with another stimulus bill! That is economic insanity. Former Reagan aide Peter Ferrara wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
The fallacies of Keynesian economics were exposed decades ago by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Keynesian thinking was then discredited in practice in the 1970s, when the Keynesians could neither explain nor cure the double-digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment that resulted from their policies. Ronald Reagan’s decision to dump Keynesianism in favor of supply-side policies—which emphasize incentives for investment — produced a 25-year economic boom. That boom ended as the Bush administration abandoned every component of Reaganomics one by one, culminating in Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s throwback Keynesian stimulus in early 2008.
Mr. Obama showed up in early 2009 with the dismissive certitude that none of this history ever happened, and suddenly national economic policy was back in the 1930s. Instead of the change voters thought they were getting, Mr. Obama quintupled down on Mr. Bush’s 2008 Keynesianism.
Keynesian theory is every bit as superstitious as believing in astrology or a flat Earth or the good-luck powers of a rabbit’s foot. The facts of history are beyond dispute. The old Keynesian superstition has failed every time it was tried. But Keynesian fundamentalists like Barack Obama continue to live in a state of denial.
We know what works. Nearly a century of economic history proves it. Now we need a president and a Congress with the common sense to apply the lessons of history to the economic crisis of today.
How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age
I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. With Bible the ordinary citizen could say that majority was wrong. B. Tremendous freedom without chaos because Bible gives a base for law.”
Another great point that Schaeffer makes in this series is that Communism has NEVER EXISTED WITHOUT BRINGING REPRESSION. A few months ago a young person said to me, “I think that Marx was misunderstood and that true communism has not been really tried yet.” I responded that there are a hand full of Communist countries today and they all have several similar conditions: NO FREEDOM OF PRESS, NO POLITICAL FREEDOM, NO FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND NO ECONOMIC FREEDOM. I noted that Schaeffer has rightly said that Communism is basically based on materialism and a result it must fail. It does not have a Reformation base.
T h e
REVOLUTIONARY AGE
I. Bible as Absolute Base for Law
A. Paul Robert’s mural in Lausanne.
B. Rutherford’s Lex Rex (Law Is King): Freedom without chaos; government by law rather than arbitrary government by men.
C. Impact of biblical political principles in America.
1. Rutherford’s influence on U.S. Constitution: directly through Witherspoon; indirectly through Locke’s secularized version of biblical politics.
2. Locke’s ideas inconsistent when divorced from Christianity.
3. One can be personally non-Christian, yet benefit from Christian foundations: e.g. Jefferson and other founders.
II. The Reformation and Checks and Balances
A. Humanist and Reformation views of politics contrasted.
B. Sin is reason for checks and balances in Reformed view: Calvin’s position at Geneva examined.
C. Checks and balances in Protestant lands prevented bloody resolution of tensions.
D. Elsewhere, without this biblically rooted principle, tensions had to be resolved violently.
III. Contrast Between English and French Political Experience
A. Voltaire’s admiration of English conditions.
B. Peaceful nature of the Bloodless Revolution of 1688 in England related to Reformation base.
C. Attempt to achieve political change in France on English lines, but on Enlightenment base, produced a bloodbath and a dictatorship.
1. Constructive change impossible on finite human base.
2. Declaration of Rights of Man, the rush to extremes, and the Goddess of Reason.
3. Anarchy or repression: massacres, Robespierre, the Terror.
4. Idea of perfectibility of Man maintained even during the Terror.
IV. Anglo-American Experience Versus Franco-Russian
A. Reformation experience of freedom without chaos contrasts with that of Marxist-Leninist Russia.
B. Logic of Marxist-Leninism.
1. Marxism not a source of freedom.
2. 1917 Revolution taken over, not begun, by Bolsheviks.
3. Logic of communism: elite dictatorship, suppression of freedoms, coercion of allies.
V. Reformation Christianity and Humanism: Fruits Compared
A. Reformation gave absolutes to counter injustices; where Christians failed they were untrue to their principles.
B. Humanism has no absolute way of determining values consistently.
C. Differences practical, not just theoretical: Christian absolutes give limited government; denial of absolutes gives arbitrary rule.
VI. Weaknesses Which Developed Later in Reformation Countries
A. Slavery and race prejudice.
1. Failure to live up to biblical belief produces cruelty.
2. Hypocritical exploitation of other races.
3. Church’s failure to speak out sufficiently against this hypocrisy.
B. Noncompassionate use of accumulated wealth.
1. Industrialism not evil in itself, but only through greed and lack of compassion.
2. Labor exploitation and gap in living standards.
3. Church’s failure to testify enough against abuses.
C. Positive face of Reformation Christianity toward social evil.
1. Christianity not the only influence on consensus.
a) Church’s silence betrayed; did not reflect what it said it believed.
b) Non-Christian influences also important at that time; and many so-called Christians were “social” Christians only.
2. Contributions of Christians to social reform.
a) Varied efforts in slave trade, prisons, factories.
(1) Wesley, Newton, Clarkson, Wilberforce, and abolition of slavery.
(2) Howard, Elizabeth Fry, and prison reforms.
(3) Lord Shaftesbury and reform in the factories.
b) Impact of Whitefield-Wesley revivals on society.
VII. Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection
But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement.
A. With Bible the ordinary citizen could say that majority was wrong.
B. Tremendous freedom without chaos because Bible gives a base for law.
Questions
1. What has been the role of biblical principles in the legal and political history of the countries studied?
2. Is it true that lands influenced by the Reformation escaped political violence because biblical concepts were acted upon?
3. What are the core distinctions, in terms of ideology and results, between English and American Revolutions on the one hand, and the French and Russian on the other hand?
4. What were the weaknesses which developed at a later date in countries which had a Reformation history?
5. Dr. Schaeffer believes that basic to action is an idea, and that the history of the West in the last two or three centuries has been marked by a humanism pressed to its tragic conclusions and by a Christianity insufficiently applied to the totality of life. How should Christians then approach participation in social and political affairs?
Key Events and Persons
Calvin: 1509-1564
Samuel Rutherford: 1600-1661
Rutherford’s Lex Rex: 1644
John Locke: 1631-1704
John Wesley: 1703-1791
Voltaire: 1694-1778
Letters on the English Nation: 1733
George Whitefield: 1714-1770
John Witherspoon: 1723-1794
John Newton: 1725-1807
John Howard: 1726-1790
Jefferson: 1743-1826
Robespierre: 1758-1794
Wilberforce: 1759-1833
Clarkson: 1760-1846
Napoleon: 1769-1821
Elizabeth Fry: 1780-1845
Declaration of Rights of Man: 1789
National Constituent Assembly: 1789-1791
Second French Revolution and Revolutionary Calendar: 1792
The Reign of Terror: 1792-1794
Lord Shaftesbury: 1801-1855
English slave trade ended: 1807
Slavery ended in Great Britain and Empire: 1833
Karl Marx: 1818-1883
Lenin: 1870-1924
Trotsky: 1879-1940
Stalin: 1879-1953
February and October Russian Revolutions: 1917
Berlin Wall: 1961
Czechoslovakian repression: 1968
Further Study
Charles Breunig, The Age of Revolution and Reaction: 1789-1850 (1970).
R.N. Carew Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism (1963).
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1957).
Peter Gay, ed., Deism: An Anthology (1968).
John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church (1970).
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1957).
Louis L. Snyder, ed., The Age of Reason (1955).
David B. Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (1975).
J. Kuczynski, The Rise of the Working Class (1971).
Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma (1958).
John Newton, Out of the Depths. An Autobiography.
John Wesley, Journal (1 vol. abridge).
C. Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, Ireland, 1845-1849 (1964).
If you like Woody Allen films as much as I do then join me every Wednesday for another look the man and his movies. Below are some of the posts from the past:
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2 Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee: John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say: Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is […]
Woody Allen, the film writer, director, and actor, has consistently populated his scripts with characters who exchange dialogue concerning meaning and purpose. In Hannah and Her Sisters a character named Mickey says, “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.”{7} […]
Bananas (1971) en cast ex-wife, Louise Lasser (the duo were married from 1966 to 1969), as his romantic lead in this quirky comedy. When asked why he chose to title the movie Bananas, Allen quipped, “Because there are no bananas in it.” “Midnight in Paris” is one of Woody Allen best works. Woody Allen […]
Several members of the 70′s band Kansas became committed Christians after they realized that the world had nothing but meaningless to offer. It seems through the writings of both Woody Allen and Chris Martin of Coldplay that they both are wrestling with the issue of death and what meaning does life bring. Kansas went through […]
I guess the reason I have spent so much time on Woody Allen is because in so many films he discusses the big questions in life. His movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example. Check out my earlier post Nihilism can be seen in Woody Allen’s latest film “Midnight in Paris” . September (1987) The director […]
Woody Allen and the Abandonment of Guilt Dr. Marc T. Newman : AgapePress Print In considering filmmaking as a pure visual art form, Woody Allen would have to be considered a master of the medium. From his humble beginnings as a comedy writer and filmmaker, he has emerged as a major influential force in Hollywood. […]
The dvd sales of “Midnight in Paris” which went on sale in December have gone through the roof (look at the bottom of this post) and this summer we learned this fact below: ‘Midnight in Paris’ becomes Woody Allen’s all-time biggest hit. How the heck did that happen? by Owen Gleiberman Categories: Annie Hall, Bridesmaids, […]
Woody Allen interviews Billy Graham on Religion This article below makes we think of the lady tied to the Railroad in the Schaeffer video. Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism (Modern man sees no hope for the future and has deluded himself by appealing to nonreason to stay sane. Look at the example […]
A surprisingly civil discussion between evangelical Billy Graham and agnostic comedian Woody Allen. Skip to 2:00 in the video to hear Graham discuss premarital sex, to 4:30 to hear him respond to Allen’s question about the worst sin and to 7:55 for the comparison between accepting Christ and taking LSD. ___________________ The Christian Post > […]
“Woody Wednesday” Allen acts silly in 1971 interview (Part 4) Woody Allen interview 1971 PART 4/4 Uploaded by captainvontrapp on Jul 21, 2008 Woody Allen interview from 1971, just after the worldwide release of ‘Bananas’ ________________________ David Mishkin God and Carpeting: The Theology of Woody Allen by David Mishkin March 1, 1993 This is an […]
Milton Friedman in his series “Free to Choose” used a pencil as a simple example to should have the “invisible hand” of the freemarket works (phrase originally used by Adam Smith).
“How grateful I have been over the years for the cogency of Friedman’s ideas which have influenced me. Cherishers of freedom will be indebted to him for generations to come.” —Alan Greenspan, former Chairman, Federal Reserve System
“Right at this moment there are people all over the land, I could put dots on the map, who are trying to prove Milton wrong. At some point, somebody else is trying to prove he’s right That’s what I call influence.” —Paul Samuelson, Nobel Laureate in Economic Science
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 and if you take time to watch these episodes on inflation then you see how Ronald Reagan was able to bring inflation under control in the 1980’s with the help of Paul Volker of the Federal Reserve:
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 1
FREE TO CHOOSE: Anatomy of Crisis
Friedman Delancy Street in New York’s lower east side, hardly one of the city’s best known sites, yet what happened in this street nearly 50 years ago continues to effect all of us today. Wall Street. Most of us know what happened here 50 years ago. Inside the Stock Exchange on October 29, 1929, the market collapsed. It came to be known as Black Thursday. The Wall Street crash was followed by the worst depression in American history. That depression has been blamed on the failure of capitalism. It was no such thing but the myth lives on. What really happened was very different.
Although things looked healthy on the surface, business had begun to turn down in mid 1929. The crash intensified the recession. So did continuing bank failures in the south and Midwest. But the recession only became a crisis when these failures spread to New York and in particular to this building, then the headquarters of the Bank of United States. The failure of this bank had far reaching effects and need never have happened.
It was something of a historical accident that this particular bank played the role it did. Why did it fail? It was a perfectly good bank. Banks that were in far worse financial shape had come under difficulties before it did and had, through the cooperation of other banks, been saved. The reason why it wasn’t saved has to do with its rather special character. First its name, Bank of United States, a name that made immigrants believe it was an official governmental bank although in fact it was an ordinary commercial bank. Second its ownership, Jewish, both its name and the character of its ownership which had so much to do with attracting the large number of depositors from the many Jewish businessmen in the city of New York. Both of them also had the effect of alienating other bankers who did not like the special advantage of the name and did not like the character of the ownership. As a result, other banks were all too ready to spread rumors, to help promote an atmosphere in which runs got started on the bank and which it came into difficulty. And they were less then usually willing to cooperate in the efforts that were made to save it.
Only a few blocks away is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was here that the Bank of United States could have been saved. Indeed, the Federal Reserve System had been set up 17 years earlier precisely to prevent the worst consequences of bank failures.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose directors today meet in this room, devised a plan in cooperation with the superintendent of banking of the State of New York to save the Bank of United States. Their plan called for merging the Bank of United States with several other banks and also providing a guarantee fund to be subscribed to by still other bankers to assure the depositors that the assets of the Bank of United States were safe and sound. The Reserve Bank called meeting after meeting to try to put the plan into effect. It was on again, off again. But finally, after an all night meeting on December 10, 1930, the other bankers, including in particular John Pierpont Morgan, refused to subscribe to the guarantee fund and the plan was off. The next day the Bank of United States closed its doors, never again to open for business. For its depositors who saw their savings tied up and their businesses destroyed, the closing was tragic. Yet when the bank was finally liquidated, in the worst years of the depression, it paid back 92.5 cents on the dollar. Had the other banks cooperated to save it, no one would have lost a penny.
For the other New York banks, they thought closing the Bank of United States would have purely local effects. They were wrong. Partly because it had so many depositors, partly because so many of the depositors were small businessmen, partly because it was the largest bank that had ever been permitted to fail in the United States up to this time, the effects were far reaching. Depositors all over the country were frightened about the safety of their funds and rushed to withdraw them. There were runs. There were failures of banks by the droves. And all the time the Federal Reserve System stood idly by when it had the power and the duty and the responsibility to provide the cash that would have enabled the banks to meet the insistent demands of their depositors without closing their doors.
The way runs on banks can spread and can be stopped is a consequence of the way our bank system works. You may think that when you take some cash to a bank and deposit it, the bank takes that money and sticks it in a vault somewhere to wait until you need it again to turn it back over to you.
Bank teller: Okay, how would you like this? Two tens, one five and five ones. Okay.
Friedman: The bank does no such thing with it. It immediately takes a large part of what you put in and lends it out to somebody else. How do you suppose it earns interest, to pay its expenses, or pay you something for the use of your money? The result is that if all depositors in all the banks tried all at once to convert their deposits into cash, there wouldn’t be anything like enough cash in the banks of the country to meet their demands. In order to prevent such an outcome, in order to cut short a run, it is necessary to have some way either to stop people from asking for it, or to have some additional source from which cash can be obtained. That was intended to be the purpose of the Federal Reserve System. It was to provide the additional cash to meet the demands of the depositors when a run arose.
A classic example of how this system could and did work properly can be found over 2,000 miles from New York near the great Salt Lake in Utah.
In the early 30’s some banks in Salt Lake City and surrounding towns began to get into difficulties. The owners of one them were smart enough to see what had to be done to keep their banks open and courageous enough to do it. When fearful depositors began to clamor to withdraw all their money, one of George Eccles jobs was to brief his cashiers on how to handle the run.
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. When was the last time you met anybody that was in favor of big government? FRIEDMAN: Today, today I met Bob Lekachman, I […]
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 are working poorly now, are we to conclude that the Keynesian sort of mixed regulation was wrong __ FRIEDMAN: Yes. LEKACHMAN: __ or […]
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 been raised in the public mind, can you reverse this process where government is expected to produce the happy result? LEKACHMAN: Oh, no way. And it would […]
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 are more buildings in Washington occupied by more bureaucrats administering more laws. The Great Depression persuaded the public that private enterprise was a fundamentally unstable system. That […]
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 is the largest horde of gold in the world. Because the world was on a gold standard in 1929, these vaults, where the U.S. gold was stored, […]
George Eccles: Well, then we called all our employees together. And we told them to be at the bank at their place at 8:00 a.m. and just act as if nothing was happening, just have a smile on their face, if they could, and me too. And we have four savings windows and we […]
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 1 FREE TO CHOOSE: Anatomy of Crisis Friedman Delancy Street in New York’s lower east side, hardly one of the city’s best known sites, yet what happened in this street nearly 50 years ago continues to effect all of us today. […]
Recommended. A must read for any who have loved or admired Francis Schaeffer.
I think it is safe to say that, of all theologians contemporary or ancient, few have had as profound an affect on my life as Francis Schaeffer. Though I’ve read little of what he wrote, though he died when I was only a young child, and though I have never heard even one of his sermons, I know that my faith has been shaped by him. He was, after all, a major influence on my parents and on so many of their friends. Shortly after their conversion, my parents went three times to various European L’Abri locations, spending upwards of a year at them. In so many ways Schaeffer shaped their fledgling faith just as they later shaped mine. I am indebted to him as I am to them. And in this I am hardly the only one. Though it has been almost twenty five years since his death, Schaeffer’s impact is still felt throughout the Christian church.
Despite my indebtedness, and despite his influence over me, I know so little about Francis Schaeffer. Though widely admired, it seems that few people have taken on the challenge of documenting his life (his son’s recent attempt notwithstanding). It was with great interest, then, that I turned to Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life, a new biography written by Colin Duriez, who has previously written accounts of the lives of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.
The publisher’s description aptly summarizes the content. “From his working-class childhood in Pennsylvania, to the founding of L’Abri, his personal crisis of faith, and his latter years as a compassionate controversialist in the worldwide spotlight, all the eras of Schaeffer’s life unfold within these pages. But Duriez, who studied under and interviewed Schaeffer, also takes a deeper look, revealing those distinct life phases, as well as Schaeffer’s teachings and his complexities as a person, within their historical context so that contemporary readers may better understand all of who Schaeffer was—and why he still matters today.” Duriez depends largely on oral history he gathered—upwards of 150,000 words of it, to describe the life of this great Christian.
I find that there are at least two kinds of biographies. There are some where the reader closes the cover and feels as if he now knows a lot about the book’s subject; then there is the occasional sublime biography where the reader closes the book and feels as if he truly knowsthe subject. While I wanted this biography to fit in the latter category, I feel that it fits instead in the former. This is not meant as a critique as much as an honest assessment. Though the book has undoubtedly increased my knowledge of Francis Schaeffer, my respect for him, and my understanding of his impact on the church, I do not feel as if I really know him, as perhaps I did with Jonathan Edwards after reading Marsden’s great account of his life or with Whitefield after enjoying Dallimore’s two-volume masterpiece.
Yet the book stands on its own merits and it stands well. It is thorough without being burdensome and grapples well with the complexities of Francis Schaeffer, his life, and his ministry. It describes a man who had a unique gift for teaching and a deep, reverent love for his Saviour.
The best and, to my knowledge, the only full-length biography of Schaeffer available today, this one is well worth the read. I do not think it will stand in history as the definitive account of Schaeffer’s life, but it is still a very good account and one that will bless you as you read it. If you have been influenced by Schaeffer or if you have sought to understand his ministry, you will want to secure a copy for yourself.
Max Brantley of the Ark Times takes on Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute today concerning Obamacare. I have posted many links to Cannon’s articles in the past on my blog and on the Arkansas Times liberal blog. The finest article written in my estimation was written on Nov 20, 2012 and here is a link to it. No one has acted like Cannon’s ideas had any chance of working out since the Arkansas Times Blog is made of primarily of Obama supporters.
Below is a portion of the post by Brantley followed by links to some of the past articles and videos by Cannon I have posted before.
Posted by David Ramsey on Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute
Today’s the big day for states to decide whether they want to run their own health-insurance exchange or have the federal government do it. Arkansas opted earlier this week for a partnership.
It looks like states will split pretty evenly across the country, with around 20 running their own exchanges, around 20 ceding control to the feds, and the rest opting for a partnership. There’s been a fair amount of fuss over this decision but it probably won’t impact consumers much one way or the other.
We’ve noted that it’s a bit curious that Republican lawmakers, usually strongly in favor of more state control, have led the charge against state-run exchanges.
In the runup to the deadline for the exchange decision, a few conservatives, like Douglas Holtz-Eakin — Director of the Congressional Budget Office under George W. Bush — started to make the ideologically coherent argument that, however much they hate Obamacare, states are better off with more control. Most movement conservatives stronglyrejected these ideas.
Why? Conservatives are devoted to a give-no-quarter approach to Obamacare. Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute’s health-care point man, wrote recently in the National Review that accepting the law amounted to “Vichyism.”
And, they think, it’s not just lost causism. In addition to hoping that it will disrupt the smooth implementation of the law, Cannon wants states to say no to the exchange because he believes that a constitutional challenge can be raised against subsidies provided on the federal exchanges (the law doesn’t explicitly mention subsidies via a federal exchange because lawmakers anticipated that states would run the exchanges). The argument is pretty flimsy, but flimsy arguments have given proponents of the Affordable Care Act reason to sweat before.
The state of Oklahoma has already filed a lawsuit in federal court along these lines and the Wall Street Journal has also floated the idea. Here’s a good summary of Cannon’s Hail Mary play.
___________
Earlier posts about Michael Cannon’s works on Obamacare:
Sen. Max Baucus admits the PPACA conditions tax credits on state compliance Published on Sep 21, 2012 by Michael F. Cannon I really don’t know the answer to this question and would love it if someone would enlighten me. This article below from the Cato Institute makes the case that States can stop Obamacare from […]
It seems that Obamacare is going to go down according to this article below: GOP Vows to Keep Fighting IRS’s Illegal ObamaCare Taxes if Obama Wins Posted by Michael F. Cannon Roll Call reports that if President Obama wins re-election, House and Senate Republicans will hold votes on rescinding his illegal IRS rule that unlawfully […]
Cato’s Michael F. Cannon Discusses ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate Is Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute right about states blocking Obamacare, factchecker says he is wrong. I Have Been False* Posted by Michael F. Cannon *According to PolitiFact. In an unconscious parody of everything that’s wrong with the “fact-checker” movement in journalism, PolitiFact Georgia (a project of […]
Michael Cannon on Medicare and Healthcare You want to know the real truth about Obamacare then check out these videos and articles linked below: American people do not want Obamacare and the regulations that go with it March 7, 2012 – 8:02 am In this article below you will see that the American people do not […]
Gerard Matthews wrote on March 21, 2012 in the Arkansas Times: Children cannot be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Young people can stay on their parents’ health insurance plan until they are 26 years old. Preventive services, which will ultimately help control health care costs, have been added to some plans at no […]
Michael Cannon on Medicare and Healthcare In his article, “Medicaid and the consequences,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, March 20, 2012, (paywall), Brummett admits, “Medicaid will break the bank of state government if we don’t do something.” However, he never gets around to saying that Obamacare is going to ruin the state financially. It will expand this failing […]
Michael Cannon on Medicare and Healthcare You want to know the real truth about Obamacare then check out these videos and articles linked below: American people do not want Obamacare and the regulations that go with it March 7, 2012 – 8:02 am In this article below you will see that the American people do not […]
Is Washington Bankrupting America? Uploaded by BankruptingAmerica on Apr 20, 2010 Be first to receive our videos and other timely info about economic policy. Subscribe at http://www.bankruptingamerica.org ————————- According to a recent poll, 74 percent of likely voters are extremely or very concerned about the current level of government spending. And 58 percent think the […]
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 June 15, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
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 see […]
Michael Cannon on Medicare and Healthcare 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 […]
On 12-13-12 I got to hear the All-American Rejects and their lead singer Tyson Ritter play at Juanita’s in Little Rock on Clinton Ave. The performance of music was very good. However, Tyson’s rock and roll lifestyle is not the way a young boy from Oklahoma should act when fame comes his way at age 17.
Now ten years later Tyson has admitted that fame turned him into a jerk especially from 2008 to 2011 when he lived in LA. His lack of respect for woman was satired in the song “Beekeeper’s Daughter.”
When I think of a young man who lives in Oklahoma who has reacted well to fame and remained down-to-earth at the same time then I think of Landry Jones.
Landry Jones and Whitney Hand are now officially the University of Oklahoma’s first couple.
The Sooners’ starting quarterback and women’s basketball team’s starting guard were married over the weekend after the pair began dating in 2009.
So where did the Sooners’ duo wed? Texas, of course.
Before Oklahoma fans throw up their hands in bedlam, the ceremony took place in Hand’s hometown of Fort Worth.
The ceremony featured an ice block in the shape of a heart (pictured below) with the letters “W + L” on it and Jones’ teammate, Drew Allen, tweeted a picture of the two with the words, “Mr. & Mrs. Landry Jones”. There’s no word on where the two will honeymoon.
Hopefully married life will have a positive effect on Jones’ senior season, as he looks to bounce back from a mediocre junior campaign in which he threw a career-high 15 interceptions.
Landry and Wendy are Christians and followed Christian teachings concerning dating. This is in contrast to Tyson Ritter’s approach of no lasting committment.
I have an article at the bottom of this post that tells about All-American Rejects and their music but first I wanted to talk a little more about Landry and Wendy.
Sports always came easy for Oklahoma quarterback Landry Jones. Everyone wanted him for their team. Everybody loved him. He had friends, girls– the world was at his fingertips. Yet he still desired more.
From the I Am Second movement (iamsecond.com) meant to inspire people of all kinds to live for God and for others.
______________________
I have a lot of respect for Landry Jones. I love the points made at the end of this article concerning scriptures in the Bible that apply to Christians dating.
Jan/Feb 2011 Dating Game Jill Ewert
“You tell it. You’re so much better at telling it than me. I always leave out too many details.” Landry Jones scoots back deeper into the couch in the middle of FCA Area Representative Kent Bowles’ sports room. He’s surrounded by everything a college athlete could find comforting: a ping pong table, framed college football jerseys, a gumball machine and his girlfriend: OU shooting guard Whitney Hand.
He says this not because he doesn’t want to tell the story himself, but because he’s humble about it—almost sheepish—and he doesn’t want to blow his own whistle.
“OK,” says Hand, her grin widening by the second. She can hardly wait to dive in and brag on Jones’ brilliant scheme.
“Landry is not my walk with Christ, and I don’t want to be in that position in his life, either. I never want him to love me more than he loves Jesus.” – Whitney Hand
They’d both arrived on the OU campus as freshman in 2008 and were immediately attracted to each other when they met through orientation and began running in the same athletic circles. Jones tested the romantic waters all summer and into the fall by jokingly asking Hand on dates, comments to which she’d always reply with rolled eyes and a playful, “Oh, shut up.” But when October rolled around, Jones decided to take a legitimate shot.
“No, I really want to go on a date with you,” he’d said. When she agreed, Jones knew he had one chance to sweep her off her feet.
Hand tells the first date story with animation. “I met him downstairs in my dorm, and immediately he tells me that he forgot his wallet at his parents’ house in Oklahoma City, which is, like, a 30-minute drive.”
She rolls her eyes.
“I’m like, ‘Are you serious?’”
Jones stares at the floor, grinning. She glances over at him, smiles and continues the story.
“We get there, and he’s like, ‘Wait here.’ So, he ran inside and left me waiting in the car. I actually called one of my friends and told her, ‘He forgot his stinking wallet!’ But then he came back outside a couple minutes later and told me to come in.”
Hand got out of the car, followed Jones through the front door and was completely shocked to find flowers and a candle-lit dinner waiting for her. Granted, it was only Raising Cane’s Chicken, but that just made the story even more interesting.
“He didn’t know that I absolutely detest fast food,” Hand reveals.
In an environment like that, though, the menu was of little concern. She’d been wooed. And while the actual relationship wouldn’t take off until three months later due to the interruption of another potential suitor from Hand’s hometown (a story for another time), it was the start of what has now been a 2.5-year dating relationship between the Sooner stars.
Officially dubbed “the First Couple of Oklahoma” by the local press, Landry Jones and Whitney Hand, both Christians since childhood, have watched as the Lord has used their time together to both bless and challenge them in life, sports and faith.
“We’re not dating experts, but the Lord has taught us so much through being together,” Hand says. “Whatever He shares with us, we want to share with others and help them grow in their faith, too. We believe that right now we’re a better witness for Him together than apart.”
Two years ago when their relationship began, neither Jones nor Hand would have guessed that they’d be called to support each other through two major injuries: one Hand suffered herself and the other sustained by then-OU starting quarterback Sam Bradford.
It was the fall of 2009, and the two athletes had been dating for almost a year. On Sept. 5, Jones, just a redshirt freshman, was called onto the field to replace Bradford, who had injured his throwing shoulder. It was an event that put tremendous pressure on Jones as he was forced to lead one of the nation’s most prominent college football programs, and he needed support.
As the faithful girlfriend, Hand utilized her position to speak words of God’s truth to Jones and encourage him. What she didn’t realize was that the favor would need to be returned just two months later when she would experience a season-ending injury of her own: a torn ACL.
Following his girlfriend’s example, Jones began speaking Scripture and godly encouragement to the discouraged shooting guard.
“I don’t think I would have made it through this injury as spiritually healthy without Landry,” says Hand, who had started her college career as one of the top freshman in the nation. “When Satan spoke lies throughout the injury about me not being good enough, being forgotten or being replaced, Landry came back with, ‘No, this is what the Lord says. This is what Jesus thinks of you.’ And that just spoke to my heart so preciously. It was like Jesus was teaming up with Landry to love on me.”
It was a defining time for them both individually and as a dating couple. By walking together through two of the most significant challenges athletes can face, they learned lessons about perseverance, patience and selflessness.
Now, looking back, they realize that, as tough as they were, the challenges only made them stronger.
“You have to fall in love with Jesus first before you can love another person correctly.” – Landry Jones
“It’s helpful to reflect on it now and be like, ‘OK, we’ve gone through an ACL injury and a tough season together. How bad could it be?’” Jones says. “I think one thing Satan tries to do is to get us to forget the hard times we’ve gone through and the lessons we learned from them. By going through them together, we can help each other remember those times and see that we can endure other things, too.”
Words of godly truth, however, would be more likely to fall on deaf ears if they weren’t spoken by someone who truly understood an athletic mind.
According to both Sooner stars, a shared understanding of sports has been an asset to their relationship, helping them not only through the career-marking challenges, but also the day-to-day irritations of sports.
“Because we’re both athletes, we’re able to be on the same page on a lot of things,” Jones says. “Whitney can come over and tell me that she had a bad practice, and I’ll be able to say, ‘Yep, I know where you’re coming from. I know that feeling, and it stinks.’”
Hand nods in agreement.
“It helps so much that he doesn’t just say, ‘Oh, it’s OK. You’re still great.’ He really understands. And when he comes back from practice and says something like, ‘Man, I wasn’t accurate today,’ I can totally relate. It’s just a different level, and it’s a huge blessing from God.”
Inevitably, though, learning to date in a godly manner has involved more than spiritual encouragement. As part of the Christian dating experience, Jones and Hand have had to face familiar battles like the one for sexual purity, and both admit to struggling with appropriate boundaries.
After early difficulties in what Hand calls their “infatuation stage”—the time in which neither could do wrong in the eyes of the other—both began being discipled and involving the accountability of others in order to maintain godly standards.
“We realized we needed help,” Hand says. “Our struggles had really put a cloud on everything and even affected how we performed in our sports. It was just an ugly domino effect.”
To counter the temptation, they turned to the Word of God, their churches, their FCA teammates and, most importantly, the Holy Spirit.
“As our relationships with Christ grew both together and apart, our desire to please Him became greater than our desire to please each other physically,” Hand says. “He helped us realize that we weren’t married and couldn’t act like we were. He loved us enough to ask us to stay pure so that He could bless us in the future.”
Jones and Hand with the OU FCA leadership team
FCA SOONER STYLE
Landry Jones and Whitney Hand have been dynamic parts of the FCA Huddle at the University of Oklahoma since arriving on campus. They both attend the Tuesday-night Huddle meetings and speak frequently at local FCA events.At a recent ministry outreach for young female athletes hosted by Central Oklahoma FCA Area Representative Sarah Roberts, Hand shared her and Jones’ dating story, including her battle with idolatry and placing Jones in a position above Christ in her life.
“It was something that all the girls really needed to hear,” Roberts said. “She was so honest with them about her personal struggles, and that made such a difference. God is really doing something special by bringing Whitney and Landry together.”
Through events like these, the FCA staff in Oklahoma are making an eternal impact on the lives of athletes and coaches. And with the help of athletes like Jones and Hand, their reach is only being extended.
“Landry and Whitney are tremendous blessings to the entire community,” said FCA Area Representative Kent Bowles, who works directly with the OU Huddle. “They are constant reminders of how God orchestrates all areas of our lives for His glory. These guys love the Lord first, and, because of that love, they are truly growing closer to Him and to each other as well.”
For more information on FCA in Oklahoma, visit okfca.org.
Their stance of purity paid off in more ways than one, blessing both their relationship and the lives of those observing it.
As OU athletes, Jones and Hand know they’re on a platform—one that is only heightened by their relationship. Instead of shrinking back from the public, the “power couple” has embraced their status and used it as an avenue for ministry by showing those around them not only two individual models of Christ, but also one example of a Christ-centered dating couple.
“It’s not what you’d expect, but when guys ask me if Whitney and I have done anything and I say no, they usually say, ‘I respect that,’” Jones says. “I know I shouldn’t say that it’s a weird response, but it is in today’s culture. But it goes along with what I’m finding out about Christ in general. More people really want to know about Him than you’d think.”
It’s something that the two Sooners take to heart: the fact that, through their relationship, they get to tell others about Jesus Christ. It’s become a great desire for them both and yet another shared passion.
They agree that they’re living blessed lives of position and influence and that they have a significant chance to make a difference for the Lord. The fact that they get to do that together is just icing on the cake.
But it’s not the cake itself. That, of course, is Jesus.
“It’s something that we’ve struggled to learn, but we both have come to understand that no other person can completely fulfill you—only Jesus can do that,” Hand says. “And until you know who you are in Christ and understand His love for you, it’s going to be difficult for you to love another person correctly. You’ll always be putting them in a position they weren’t designed by God to hold in your life.”
Says Jones, “I would agree with that. You have to fall in love with Jesus first before you can love another person correctly. As it says in the Bible, you can’t be unevenly yoked. For guys especially, because we’re so visual, we might see a girl and want to date her, but, if she’s not a Christian, it’s not going to work out.”
For Jones and Hand, it goes back to the analogy of running the race together—pursuing Christ side by side at the same pace and remaining focused on Him. And, when it comes to dating advice, both cite Matthew 6:33 (NIV)— “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well”—and point to the greatest commandment of loving the Lord above all else.
“I want to be more in love with Christ than I am with Landry,” Hand says. “If Landry and I were to break up, I wouldn’t want my walk with Christ to disappear with him. Landry is not my walk with Christ, and I don’t want to be in that position in his life either. I never want him to love me more than he loves Jesus.”
In a candid moment, Jones looks over at his girlfriend and beams at her. The wheels of revelation turn in his mind as he sees more of Christ being revealed through her.
He can’t put it any better than she did, and he wouldn’t want to. He likes to see her shine. It’s part of the selfless thing he’s learned through the dating process. Instead, Jones embraces the chance to encourage Hand and support her point.
“Yeah, that’s great. Definitely take her advice.”
She smiles back and receives the support with gratitude.
Mission accomplished.
DATING ADVICE FROM THE WORDDating is a tricky subject, but it’s one that must be addressed. While the Bible may not offer black-and-white dating instructions, it does give clear commands regarding proper conduct in relationships. If we follow those instructions, we can be sure that we’ll find success in dating regardless of the relationship’s outcome.As a starting point, we encourage you to read the following Scriptures, which can serve as basic tips for how to date in a Godhonoring way:1. Matthew 6:33 – Seek God above all else. Staying focused on Him and letting Him guide your thoughts, words and actions is the most sure-fire way to achieve victory in any area of life, including dating. Read His Word daily, pray and prioritize your time alone with Him even as your social calendar fills up.2. Matthew 22:37-38; Romans 12:10– Love Him and love others. Keep in mind that relationships involve other people who are also God’s beloved children. Put Him first and then put the other person’s best interest second. If an action you take would displease God on their behalf, don’t do it.3. Proverbs 15:22 – Seek wise counsel. In dating, you will experience new challenges as the emotions, habits and choices of two people come together. Put yourself under the influence of godly advisers who can help you remain above reproach and make wise decisions.4. Ephesians 5:11; James 5:16– Stay accountable. Dating will expose you to areas of strong temptation. Keeping your struggles a secret is a guaranteed way to set yourself up for failure. Enlist the help of a Christian friend or mentor who can ask you tough questions about your conduct.5. 2 Corinthians 4:16-18– Don’t be weighed down. The Bible says that believers should not be “yoked” with unbelievers, and it does so for good reason. As Christians, we are clearly set apart as vessels of God’s holy light in a dark world. If another person does not have that light, according to Scripture, they are walking in darkness. While we should still love them through Christ, we should not be bound together with them or with anything that would dim the light of the Lord inside us.When done the right way, dating can be a great experience. If you choose to enter into a dating relationship, see it as a way of growing in your relationship with Christ. Take the opportunity to learn about serving and honoring another on behalf of the Lord, about pointing others to Him, and about further discovering who God created you to be.Again, there’s no formula for dating, but there are basic instructions we can follow that will help us survive the process and enter into marriage without unnecessary emotional baggage and with our godly integrity and purity intact. Our only role is to say yes to the Lord and stick to His plan.
The band achieved mainstream success with their debut self-titled studio album, The All-American Rejects, released in 2003. The album was certified platinum by the RIAA and spawned the hit single “Swing, Swing“.[6] The band’s second album, Move Along (2005), brought the band more mainstream success. The album produced three hit singles; “It Ends Tonight“, “Dirty Little Secret” and “Move Along“, all of which charted in the top fifteen on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.[7] Both “Move Along” and “Dirty Little Secret” sold over two million digital downloads in the United States. The album itself was certified double platinum by the RIAA.[6] The All-American Rejects’ third album, When the World Comes Down, was released on December 16, 2008. The album was certified gold by the RIAA.[6] The first single, “Gives You Hell“, became the band’s first song to be successful internationally: it peaked at number-four on the Hot 100 chart, number-three on the Australian ARIA Singles chart and charted in the top twenty of the UK Singles Chart.[7][8][9] On March 21, 2011, the RIAA certified “Gives You Hell” 4× multi-platinum for sales of over 4 million in the United States.[10] The band’s fourth album: Kids in the Street released worldwide on March 26, 2012 debuted at No.18 on the US Billboard 200 chart.
Since the start of their career, The All-American Rejects have sold over 10 million albums world wide.[11][12] The All-American Rejects were ranked No. 73 on the “Hot 100 Artists of the 2000s”[13] and No. 183 on Billboard magazine’s “Billboard 200 Artists of the Decade” list.[14]
The band formed in Stillwater, Oklahoma, in 1999 while members Tyson Ritter and Nick Wheeler were still in high school. The two originally met in 1997 at a club where an early band of Wheeler’s was performing. It was here that Ritter offered himself for bass duties. Eventually Ritter and Wheeler decided to form The All-American Rejects.[5]
In 2000, still in high school, the band made a demo simply labeled The All-American Rejects, with Jesse Tabish as vocalist/guitarist, Tyson Ritter as vocalist/bassist and Nick Wheeler on drums. The demo CD was engineered, mixed and mastered by Wheeler. It was also managed by Half-A-Cup Entertainment. The demo is now commonly referred to as The Blue Disc or The Blue Album. The CD consisted of twelve songs, a few of which would be included on the Same Girl, New Songs demo made in 2001. Jesse Tabish later split from the group and later became a member of the folk band other lives. Ritter and Wheeler put together the Same Girl, New Songs EP, which was soon sent to independent Doghouse Records, where an intern saved the disc from the trash, and revealed it to the label owner. The All-American Rejects were soon signed to a recording contract.[15]
In 2001, with producer Tim O’Hier, they recorded their self-titled debut album, The All-American Rejects. The album and its first single, “Swing, Swing“, were released towards the end of 2002. The band began looking for additional members for a live act.[16] Edmond, Oklahoma resident Mike Kennerty joined on as rhythm guitarist soon before the album was released. Soon after, the band was having problems with drummer Tim Campbell. Campbell was later replaced by drummer Chris Gaylor, who knew and played in another band with Kennerty.[17]
The band was then signed by DreamWorks Records. The band hit the road for eight shows in January, and DreamWorks issued a broader-scale distribution of the debut LP. The album peaked at No. 25 on the Billboard 200. The single “Swing, Swing” was also re-issued, which peaked on the Billboard Hot 100 at No. 60 as well as No. 8 on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart.[18][19][20] The single “The Last Song” was also released spring 2003, and climbed to No. 29 on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart.[20]
Early in 2003, the band went on tour as an opening act for CKY. While several differing stories have occurred concerning the tour, they were kicked off the tour shortly after it began.
In Spring 2003, The All-American Rejects set out on their first headlining tour, called the Too Bad For Hell Tour. In later 2003, The All-American Rejects released, Live from Oklahoma… The Too Bad for Hell DVD!, their first live DVD – which was later certified Gold by the RIAA. During this time, they performed on the Vans Warped Tour. They would later be part of the lineup again in summer 2005. In November, The All-American Rejects joined the band Motion City Soundtrack for six shows in the United Kingdom, the first date on the 16th, and the last on the 22nd.[21]
In July 2005, The All-American Rejects released their second studio album, Move Along, produced by Howard Benson. The album’s first single, “Dirty Little Secret“, was released that summer to radio stations.
In 2006, the second single and title track from Move Along, was released. Within the first weeks after premiering their video, it had been on the Total Request Live countdown, hitting number-one four days in a row. The single did not chart on the Billboard Hot 100 until almost six months after its release, in June. On March 15, 2006, the All-American Rejects began a tour of the United States that wrapped up on May 13, 2006. On May 25, The All-American Rejects performed at the first ever VH1 Rock Honors, covering Def Leppard‘s “Photograph“. In July the band sent a promotional single from Move Along, called “Top of the World” to modern rock radio. A music video was created for it from clips of The All-American Rejects on tour and in concert.
“Move Along” was also used to help promote LegoBIONICLE‘s Inika toy sets in the summer of 2006. The band also participated in a promotion for the sets called “Free the Band”. The overall priority of the promotion was that the Rejects got kidnapped by the villainous Piraka whilst sailing on a yacht and people had to assist the Inika on finding and rescuing the band via the website ‘freetheband.com’. A competition could also be entered where the winners would receive BIONICLE and All-American Rejects merchandise alike.[23]
In September 2006, a third headlining single, “It Ends Tonight“, was released from Move Along. The video debuted at No. 10 on the VH1 Top 20 countdown. The video also peaked at No. 2 on TRL.[24] Later in the year The All-American Rejects launched the Tournado tour in support of Move Along. The tour kicked off at Hartford, Connecticut on October 27, and wrapped up at Champaign, Illinois on December 20.
The All-American Rejects began writing material for their third studio album in December 2006. The band also collaborated with composer Danny Elfman on “The Future Has Arrived”, which was included on the soundtrack of Disney film Meet the Robinsons. The song was created in conjunction with the film’s musical score.
On July 17, 2007 The All-American Rejects released their second live DVD, titled Tournado, with content from the 2006 headlining tour of the same name. In December 2007, the songs “Move Along” and “Dirty Little Secret” were released as downloadable content in the video game Rock Band.[25] In the summer of 2008, The All-American Rejects canceled their dates on that year’s Warped Tour to complete When the World Comes Down. The demo for the song “Real World” was selected for the soundtrack of Madden 09. Also during the summer, they covered “Jack’s Lament” from The Nightmare Before Christmas, which was featured on Nightmare Revisited. The finished album version of the song “I Wanna” appeared in the movie, The House Bunny, which was released to theaters on August 22, 2008. Vocalist/bassist Tyson Ritter played a role in the film, and offered up “I Wanna” for the soundtrack.[26]
On September 30, 2008 the first single from When the World Comes Down, “Gives You Hell” was released on October 8, 2008. The All-American Rejects were inducted into the Oklahoma Music Hall of Fame, and were awarded with “Rising Star http://www.billboard.com/song/the-all-american-rejects/gives-you-hell/12141775#/song/the-all-american-rejects/gives-you-hell/12141775 Gives You Hell peaked at No. 1 on Pop charts on billboard.com and also peaked No. 1 on iTunes charts and No. 5 most downloaded song of the 2009 year, and the No. 1 most played song of the year 2009. “.[27] The music video for “Gives You Hell” was released November fifth and reached number one on VH1‘s Top 20 Countdown. On the sixth, in support of “Gives You Hell”, the band started the Gives You Hell Tour, which hit many small venues and clubs. Then, on the eighteenth “Mona Lisa (When the World Comes Down)”, another song from the band’s upcoming album, was released digitally on iTunes. In the first week of December, the album version of “Real World” was made available for download on Rock Band for the Xbox 360/PlayStation 3.
Finally, three years after Move Along was released, the group’s third album, When the World Comes Down (produced by Eric Valentine), was released on December 16, 2008.[28] After the Gives You Hell Tour wrapped up, the band embarked on a world tour until coming back to the states to start the I Wanna Rock Tour, which hit many major venues in the United States.
In May 2009 The All-American Rejects released a second single in the United States, entitled “The Wind Blows“, which achieved moderate success. “I Wanna” was released internationally on July 8 to Australia and the United Kingdom. Another song from When the World Comes Down, “Real World”, was featured on the “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” soundtrack released on June 23, 2009, but is not featured in the film. In July, “Real World” was released as a promotional single in the United States, followed by “I Wanna” as a headliner. In late summer The All-American Rejects joined Weezer, Fall Out Boy and Taking Back Sunday for the second half of the Blink-182 Reunion Tour.
On 15 August The All-American Rejects made history, performing alongside Hoobastank, Raygun, Boys Like Girls, Pixie Lott and Kasabian as one of the live acts at Asia’s very first MTV World Stage Live In Malaysia concert.[29] This performance gained them recognition in Malaysia. When the World Comes Down soon sold over 15,000 digital and physical copies in the country. On August 21 the “I Wanna” single was issued to Austria and Germany.
In October 2009, The All-American Rejects were forced to cancel shows due to an injury to frontman Tyson Ritter. He performed from a wheelchair with his leg in a brace on September 27 during a show in Tampa, Florida, amid reports suggesting the singer had undergone knee surgery to remove a tumor that had been there for many months. Ritter’s leg became infected, and he remained hospitalized for five days. Ritter made a full recovery in time to return to kick off the Battle Of The Bands Tour with Taking Back Sunday, with the first date at MSU in Michigan.[30][31]
The All-American Rejects announced that they will be performing their last show in support of When the World Comes Down at Hollywood, California on December 14. Since the date soon sold out, the band added a second date at the venue for the next day. However, the band will play one more show at the “Jingle Bell Bash” in Seattle on December 19.
In February 2010, The All-American Rejects performed at the Winter Olympics at the Whistler Medals Plaza. They also had DirecTV performances at Super Bowl XLIV and a special set aired in February. The band also wrote and recorded the song “The Poison” for the Almost Alice compilation, a collection of songs representing the 2010 Tim Burton film Alice in Wonderland. From June 25 to July 18, The All-American Rejects toured the United States and Canada as part of the Warped Tour 2010 festival.
Later that year, the band began working on a fourth studio album. The band’s songwriters Nick Wheeler and Tyson Ritter went on numerous writing retreats into secluded parts of the United States; a tradition of writing used on their previously-released albums. Recording for The All-American Rejects’s fourth album wrapped up in June 2011, with mixing commencing the following August and concluding in early September. According to lead singer Tyson Ritter, the album will be much different compared to their past releases – including their previous album, When the World Comes Down, from which the band became more experimental with their sound. On November 14, 2011 Ritter announced via his Twitter that ex Taking Back Sunday bassist Matt Rubano had joined the band as their bass player for live performances, but stated that [Ritter] is still the bass player recording-wise.[32][33]
The All-American Rejects shot a music video for a promotional song from their fourth studio album entitled “Someday’s Gone” on December 3, 2011 and released it two days after on December 5, along with the offer to download the song for free from their official website.,[34] the band quoted “We wanted to give fans an early candy cane for the holidays and this song is the teeth of the record.” In the video for the song a calendar displayed in the background claims that the release for the band’s fourth album has been pushed back to March 26, 2012. The band later announced the title and tracklisting for their fourth studio album Kids in the Street on December 16, 2011, and that the first single off the record would be titled “Beekeeper’s Daughter“, it premiered in an episode of American teen drama 90210 on January 31, 2012 before being digitally released on the same day.[35] The All-American Rejects later embarked and are currently on their Shaking Off the Rust tour, which began in San Luis Obispo, California, United States on January 18, 2012 and is to proceed throughout the year, some of which they performed as a support act for Blink-182‘s 20th Anniversary Tour in the UK.
