"Let It Be" as a Phil Spector, rather than Beatles Project.

 

 

My early influences on writing are Charles Dickens, Rod Serling, Simon and Garfunkel lyrics, and this description on the back cover of the Beatles “Let It Be” album.

Here with this description, I learned that much impression can be influenced by a few well-chosen words.

I shall provide comment for each part of the description:

 

This is a new phase Beatles album…

 I think each and every Beatles album that followed a previous one was a “new phase” in their recording career. Beatles For Sale, Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and on, each of those were new phase in recording technique.

But what I learned from this statement on the back of the album was that merely saying so explicitly gave it a compelling air of uniqueness.

Essential to the content of the film, LET IT BE was that they performed live for many of the tracks;

 Perhaps what is referred to here is the roof-top performance which took place on January 30, 1969. But, for anyone who has watched the Let it Be/ Get Back sessions documentaries, one could describe all of the tracks as “live”. I consider the experiment a series of jam sessions which lack the precision of production under true recording studio conditions.

In comes the warmth and the freshness of a live performance;

I suppose I can concur as it relates to the roof top concert. But the “working” sessions, as viewed in the documentaries, left me with an “ok, let’s get on with it” impatience.

As reproduced for disk by Phil Spector

    The most conspicuous and relevant statement in the description identifies the legendary Phil Spector as having, not produced, rather, reproduced the material for disk, rather than film.

    Phil Spector had acquired such fame and acclaim as a producer that when a new album was released by Ronnie and the Ronettes, or other Spector-produced groups or material, it was often referred to as “the latest Phil Spector album”.

That is how I see “Let it Be”, as a Spector album with abandoned experimental Beatles material as his project.

    By the time the album was released it had become publicly known that the Beatles had broken up. The description on the back cover helped to sell the album by using words such as new phase, fresh, live.

 But most effectively by invoking the name of Phil Spector.

at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland Ohio

The "No Religious Test" Clause

 

photo from BBC

For all of us, especially those in military, public office, or otherwise, who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution…

Today I highlight and affirm a clause from the Constitution which provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office…”:

Article VI Clause 3

Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I further report excerpts from a Supreme Court Opinion June 19, 1961 affirming the right of “no religious test”.

This information can be found at Library of Congress website: https://www.loc.gov/resource/usrep.usrep367488/?pdfPage=1

 From the introduction:

“Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a  belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496”

From the conclusion:

“We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. "Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

I continue to assert that religion and faith are the forum of the Church, Temple, Synagogue or Mosque, not to be imposed, declared, or preferred by any level of government.

America is a Nation of Shared Resources and Responsibilities

 

 

historyincharts,com I claim Fair Use

Well before Karl Marx was born (1818), yet longer before he published his Communist Manifesto (1848), the founders of the United States established, alongside other national attributes such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and “all men are created equally” the commitment to the idea of shared resources and responsibilities.

In conclusion of the Declaration of Independence, having articulated the justification for the separation from England, these founders also declared “ And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

We pledge to each other: This is not a declaration of “each to his own” individualism. At the very nascence of our national identity was established the idea of the common good.

Our lives: Long before the Revolutionary War was spun from the fabric of American idealism, William Shakespeare wrote in a narrative poem

“That one for all, or all for one we gage;
As life for honour in fell battle’s rage;”

I am convinced that these well-read men of noble cause had read these lines from the bard and found them to be worthy of personal and national subscription.

Our fortunes: And here we have a commitment to share in the area of financial resources. Though not an endorsement of socialism, which was not yet articulated by either Marx or Engels, it was definitely a stated allegiance to be of financial assistance one to each.

Our sacred honor: The use of the word “sacred” indicates that they considered their honor to be yet more cherished than even their fortunes or their lives. They were corporately binding together even their honor, their legacy, their place in posterity.

This was not a declaration of individualism.

It was one of corporate, shared, common good.

The ideals of shared resources and responsibilities are echoed in the Preamble to the Constitution, in which we read phrases like “We, the people”, “ a more perfect Union”, “provide for the common defence", “promote the general Welfare”, “ourselves and our Posterity”.

This same Constitution, ratified June 21, 1788, enabled an early act of “redistribution of debt” with the Funding Act of 1790. To abbreviate a complex act of Congress, August 4, 1790,  as the picture indicates, the federal government assumed the war debts of the various states, some of which had already paid their debts and so would be helping to pay the debts of other states. The first national redistribution of debt took place well before formal socialist ideology happened upon our national intellect.

My point is, the idea of nationally shared resources and responsibilities is as American as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

Encouraging United Methodist Clergy and Congregations to Engage the Social Principles.

 

   Are you, as clergy or laity of a United Methodist Church, looking for a way to transform the world?

I encourage teaching the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church.

While the Social Principles “are not church law”, meaning that a member is not obligated to subscribe to each and every position stated, neither are they to be brushed aside as irrelevant or unworthy of serious attention.

They are not merely incidental adjunct material with which the Conference chose to consume excess time. They are expressions of actions that have as their inspiration the social emphasis and personal example of John Wesley, and the teachings and example of Jesus himself.

They carry substantial General Conference approval as evidenced by the vote tallies on the various sections of the document…

                                                                        Yes                No               Percentage

Preface                                                           663                60                     92

Preamble                                                        667                54                     93

The Community of All Creation                   667                 54                     93

The Economic Community                           667                 54                     93

The Social Community                                 523                  161                  76

The Political Community                             671                   57                    92

 

A rough analogy may be: The Articles of Religion (changeable only by Amendment process), and other quadrennially legislated parts of the Book of Displine can be equated with an employee manual of a corporation or institution which becomes a contract when signed by the employee, the Social Principles may be equated with the Best Practices of the divisions of corporations.

Upon passage of the Social Principles at the 2024 General Conference Bishop Dyck commented “It is for Sunday school classes, preaching from the pulpit, for seminary classes and as a guide for all of us to use right now.”

And I provide the following suggestions:

*Sunday School classes: The teacher can approach the material in different ways. One way is merely to bring them to the attention of the students and encourage discussion. Another way is to advocate for their application. Yet another way to present the Social Principles would be as a forum to which you can invite the public as a way of “getting to know our United Methodist beliefs”.

*Preaching from the pulpit: Paragraph 403.d of the Book of Discipline states “The role of the bishop is to be a prophetic voice for justice in a suffering and conflicted world through the tradition of social holiness.” While that makes a charge to the Bishop, by extension it arrives to all clergy at the pulpit. I advocate for preaching the principles as practical illumination of the Gospel.

*Seminary: Develop information by which students and congregations can leverage their congregational resources to meet the challenge of taking broad, generalized statements in the Social Principles and Book of Resolutions and by them forming congregational goals.

*A guide for all: During Membership classes, they should be presented. One church member may be motivated to engage local government. Another may be inspired to advocate for solving homelessness. It is likely that there is a Social Principle that would move any member to action.

We acknowledge that the world, of which God has given us stewardship, is full of problems. The Social Principles, and the accompanying Book of Resolutions, offer means of practical divinity by which we may do more than merely “send thoughts and prayers” with our faith sequestered to our sanctuaries, but we may also affect positive, useful transformation of the world.

I encourage classes. There is a teaching guide at the end of the book.

The paperback version is available at cokesbury.com for $9.99

It is also available for free at this link:

https://www.umc.org/en/who-we-are/what-we-believe/our-social-positions

A report of the passage of the Social Principles can be viewed here:

https://www.resourceumc.org/en/content/all-sections-of-the-revised-social-principles-officially-adopted

The Ignorant Man Tour with Robert Michael Havard

 

 

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.

Colossians 4:5

 

    Granger Good Shepherd United Methodist Church, always at the forefront of emerging opportunities, enters a new phase of public engagement as we proudly announce the October 18, 2025 performance of Robert Michael Havard and friends in the Little Theater of the Moreau Center on the campus of St. Mary’s College.

The doors open at 5:15 PM, the show begins at 6:00 PM

Robert Michael Havard continues his Ignorant Man tour bringing his professional stage presence, passionate voice, and enthusiastic approach to multiple genres of music including country, rock, gospel, and more.

Granger Good Shepherd United Methodist Church lovingly refers to Robert and friends as our house band (one Sunday per month) and eagerly assure you that you will have an evening of exceptional enjoyment!

The Little Theatre is housed at 54100 LeMans Drive South Bend Indiana, 46556 on the campus of St. Mary’s college.

Tickets are $20 each and can be purchased online at:

https://stmc-internet.choicecrm.net/dist/#/event-details/S0:E220

A splendid time is guaranteed for all!

 

British Monarch Profession of Protestant Faith before Parliament in Contrast to US Constituion

 

 

Did you realize that the words “So help me God”, spoken by Presidents as they take the required oath or affirmation of office, are not required to be spoken, nor are they even present in the Constitution?

I acknowledge that most, if not all Presidents, have spoken those words. But they have done so as a point of personal choice, not requirement.

I present the Constitutional requirement here:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

These words are found in Article 2, section 1, last paragraph.

The link to the full transcript of the Constitution is provided at the bottom of this post.

I offer that bit of information merely as an appetizer of the Constitution before I move on to the very tasty entre which follows.

Queen Elizabeth II, addressing Parliament for the first time, November 4, 1952, began with the following paragraph…

"I, Elizabeth, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law."

This was not merely a point of personal choice for her. This profession, testimony, and declaration was necessary for her as she claimed the Throne.

There was at that time, and I believe still exists, the Act of Settlement and Protestant Succession, which was passed by Parliament in 1701. It requires the Monarch t be a member of the Church of England and to declare an oath to the Protestant faith.

Contrarily, here in the United States, there is no requirement that a person holding office of any level declare any religious faith.

In fact, Article VI, last paragraph concludes with the following provision…

“but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

It may be true that most people who lived in the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution were Christians of some stripe or another. I know that there were also Unitarians and Deists.

But this information regarding the Protestant Succession Act, which I am sure those educated framers of our government were aware of, tells us that if the framers had wanted to establish a Christian form of government, they had precedent and example to do so.

Yet they chose to go to great lengths to avoid establishing a religious government.

The Preamble of the Constitution has no religious language.

The 1^st Amendment provides that there shall be no establishment of religion by the government.

There is the aforementioned “no religious test” clause.

There are no stated prohibitions of religion, which they could, had they chosen, to include.

In stark and resolute contrast to the Protestant Succession Act of Parliament, 1701, The Constitution of the United States respects your conscience as being inviolate.

It is an exceptional trait provided to and by us. May it never be surrendered.

 

 

U S Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

 

Queen Elizabeth II speech: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1952/nov/04/the-queens-speech

 

Act of Settlement and Protestant Succession: https://archive.org/details/sn-00683-Parliamant/mode/2up

Brief Tribute to Ozzy Osbourne

 

I was not a Black Sabbath fan. I had heard of them and their recordings but such musical tone and subject matter of lyric seemed a bit harsh to me.

In 1971 a classmate of mine suggested that I try listening to a full album and reading the lyric sheet.

Having then done so, I acquiesced “OK, a legitimate rock band”. But still, I was not going to attend a concert.

Later on in life, having had a son who preferred rock of the metal persuasion, I wound up going to concerts such as Motor Head, Metallica, and, yes, Black Sabbath at the Palace, Auburn Hills, February 19, 2016.

What an experience!

Women of all ages dressed in Goth, many who had never met before, coordinated to line up in front of the stage to simultaneously curtsey before the Prince of Darkness.

During the show, Ozzy insulted the attendees, his fans. In response they cheered and clapped! He called them the biggest losers ever. All the more they cheered and clapped!

But it was all a show. A rock show. A time for like-minded people to take a sabbath from their day to day lives and experience a sense of camaraderie.

After the show, Ozzy provided the benediction “I love you, God bless you, drive carefully”.

As harsh and heavy as his rock vocal, as chest-rattling was the sound of drums, bass, and guitars, with the same intensity this benediction was delivered by the Prince of Darkness.

And so, years later, upon the passing of Ozzy, I found myself compelled to watch the funeral processional as it drove past a commemoration site in Birmingham England.

Much gratitude for Sharon and family to take the time to stop, emerge from the car and show loving respect for the fans at this fan site before moving on to the private funeral.

A Star-speckled Navy Blue Sky and Lightening Bugs with sister Vickie

 

   

My sister Vickie and I enjoyed attention.

Though autumn is my favorite season, summertime reminds me of my very young days when agility, energy, discovery, and humor were ever present and likewise was my personal mindset. Age five is a wondrous moment when neither the past nor the future inhibit the adventurous present nor even inhabit it cognitively very much at all.

   Such was the case one night circa nineteen sixty.

   It had been a very hot day in Lafollette Tennessee there on Rose Hill. I don’t remember the month, but I remember the moment quite vividly as if the evening and its orchestra of environmental and social features had been imprinted on my emotional self to reemerge periodically and in that moment of reemergence remind me of who I most am as a person.

    Indeed, it was a hot day. My sister, Vickie, and I had run around in the heat, humidity, and sun with no care as to how it was affecting our bodily comfort. The only indication of heat was the sweat running from our heads, which we, I at least, brushed away with the backs of our hands.

I remember gulping tap water from a glass, loaded with tastable minerals to which I had become accustomed.

I sit between my uncle Raymond and Jim Eckenrode. My sister's toy baby buggy is visible behind us.

Rose Hill, Lafollette, Tennessee

But it was the evening which held the boldest memory.

I lay under a tree, through which leaves and branches I could see stars interrupt the color of the sky which, though I did not know to describe at the time, I now report as “star-speckled navy blue”. I lay, with my hands behind my head, fingers intertwined, cradling that head, and wondered what indeed were “stars”.

Concurrent with that cognitive wondering was the feel of a cool breeze upon my skin which caused the leaves in the tree to briefly obscure those stars of wonder until they appeared once again and I wondered too about the origins of cool breezes.

In all of that glorious sedentary experience, I was soon disrupted by my sister Vickie, older than me by eighteen months, as she grasped me by my hand and pulled me to my feet. Into the other hand she pushed an empty canning jar and invited me to, along with her, catch lightening bugs.

As the gathered adults drank beer, whisky, and smoked cigarettes and cigars, and gossiped about the local townsfolk regarding affairs, divorces, and sundry other spicy social circumstances, Vickie and I chased the lightening bugs, tripped over exposed tree roots, bumped into each other, and attempted to outdo each other in our collection of bugs.

    Unfortunately, one cannot control much of our own personal histories or futures. 

My sister would pass away from a brain tumor about two years later.

I am happy that this memory survives as homage to her.

This memory also comforts me in my continuing attribute of discovery and inquisitiveness.

It reminds me too that, as much as we should anticipate and prepare for the future, while honoring the past, it is the present that eagerly orchestrates a lifelong memory to cherish.

Great Britain’s Indelible Colonial Imprint on the United States

 

    Next year, July 4, 2026, the United States will celebrate its semiquincentennial of separation from Great Britain. As sensational is the fact of two hundred and fifty years of independence, I think some objective realism also has legitimate standing.

   I present the argument that American Culture is the result of the colonizing effect of the Empire of Great Britain, and more broadly, Europe.

    I begin with one of the most incongruous, uninformed, and rude scoldings I have heard from time to time. The phrase “You’re in America, speak English”, harshly bellowed to non-English speakers, misappropriates the language with attempt to claim it as “American”. Surely, we have enough logical capacity about us to realize that the English language came over on the Mayflower and subsequent ships from Great Britain.

    In fact, the colonization of many peoples around the world by the Empire of Great Britain resulted in English being a prominent language across the globe. It is not American intellectual property.

The English language did not spring up from the soil of the United States, it arrived and continues to live as a colonizing effect within all states and territories of the United States.

      Yet another residual effect of colonization is that of our Common Law system and, surprisingly, even our Constitution in which we have three coequal branches of government. While many believe the idea of Constitutional government and coequal branches to have been an American invention, I report to you a quote from King George III in an essay which he wrote in the late 1750s (many years before either the Declaration or Constitution were composed) …

“Thus we have created the noblest constitution the human mind is capable of framing, where the executive power is in the prince, the legislative in the nobility and the representatives of the people, and the judicial in the people and in some cases in the nobility, to whom there lies a final appeal from all other courts of judicature, where every man's life, liberty, and possessions are secure, where one part of the legislative body checks the other by the privilege of rejecting, both checked by the executive, as that is again by the legislative; all parts moving, and however they may follow the particular interest of their body, yet all uniting at the last for the public good.

                                    This from the biography King George III by John Brook (1972; 1974), p. 109.

   So, we see that even our form of government is not original to us but is a carryover from Great Britain.

    Yet another lingering effect of colonial times is that of capitalism. The great economics philosopher Adam Smith, author of “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” often referred to as “The Bible of Capitalism”, was born in Scotland and was a citizen of Great Britain.

   Even capitalism, celebrated almost idolatrously in the United States, is an effect of British colonization.

   So, from my objective viewpoint, I must ask “Just how independent from Great Britain are we?”

   And it isn’t only Great Britain that has had a lingering effect upon us.

A continuing complaint is how people sing the National Anthem. There are many people who prefer a particular way it is to be sung. This preferred way is Operatic Style. I remind folk that opera was an invention of Italy. The word “opera” is an Italian word meaning “work in music”.  And while I am discussing the National Anthem, that melody so cherished as almost angelic, was composed by John Stafford Smith who was, you probably guessed, British!

   If we really want our national anthem sung in a truly American style, without the residual effect of British colonization, perhaps it should be sung in one of two musical varieties which did spring up from the soil in America…Bluegrass or jazz!

Imagine, Francis Scott Key’s poem set to the tune “Take Five” by Dave Brubeck or perhaps something by Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs.

Can’t you just hear the words of our national anthem to the tune of “The Ballad of Jed Clampett”?

I assert that the indelible imprint of the Empire of Great Britain is stamped upon these United States.

 And, as we approach Independence Day 2026, I ask again…”Just how independent are we”?

Social Costuming and Personality Excess

 

My wife, a continuing observant of anthropology and human behavior in general, is a proponent of the idea that the clothing we wear serves as a costume by which we may manage the perspectives of others as they evaluate us.

As many readers may have discovered, I periodically sport my Sgt. Pepper jacket as an instrument by which I may gain attention. When wearing it, I am hard to miss. The jacket is bright, flashy-blue, and very quickly identified with the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album and persona associated with that album.

Originally purchased and tailored for a “50 Year Celebration” of the album, I have since worn it at many concerts and other events.

But my wife posits that all clothing is social costuming.

Much like choosing which jewelry to wear for the day, clothing is also a choice. In either case, there is consideration of how one wants to present themselves.

When attending a job interview, one may wear business formal attire so as to assert themselves as professional.

When attending a wedding one may take care that they do not “upstage” the bride and groom. This costuming effect is to characterize oneself as being socially discerning.

Yet another example of social costuming is the act of wearing clothing, such as t-shirts, that have messaging or logos printed on them. Such folk seem to want to be identified with a cause or movement.

I quickly acknowledge that there are circumstances in which people, due to lack of resources, or perhaps situation-specific influences, cannot wear what they might prefer. These situations include uniforms for work.

Yet still, some people will wear their work uniform outside of the work situation.

I assume they do so that I, and others will associate them with that work environment.

So, it does seem that my wife is correct, most, if not all, clothing is a social costume.

But please be relaxed, if you invite me to your wedding, I will not wear the Sgt. Pepper jacket. I will wear clothing that presents me as appropriately exuberant for your wedding day.

Neither will I wear my jacket to your Christmas Party, church meeting, or baptism.

It just seems that ecclesiastical circumstances are not the appropriate venue for personality excess.

But concerts, festivals, social situations in which personality excess is not only permitted but encouraged, yeah, you can expect the jacket.

Now, if only I could fit into it as I did when I first received it!

Apollo 10: The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Mission, May 1969

 

The July 20, 1969, moon landing gets so much attention that I thought I would give a moment of recognition to the Apollo 10 mission which originally had been chosen for the landing, but, out of a sense of extra safety, did a “dress rehearsal” for Apollo 11.

   The Apollo 10 Mission rounded the moon in orbit and performed some procedures and techniques which would be needed for the mission to actually land on the moon.

This mission took place May 18-26, 1969.

The personnel involved were :

Thomas Stafford

John Young

Eugene Cernan

Recognition also goes to Charles M Schulz for his artwork created for the mission.

The Command and Service Module was code-named Charlie Brown

The Lunar Module was code-named Snoopy.

The Lunar Module, Snoopy, just above the lunar surface. The craft descended down to 47,400 feet (about 9 miles) above the moon before returning to the command and service module during Apollo 10.  (Image credit: John Young/NASA)

As the world continues to explore and investigate space and it assets, I offer the official position of the United Methodist Church regarding stewardship of space…

E. Protecting Space

“God’s creation encompasses not only the earth but the entire cosmos, including space. Our charge to be responsible stewards thus extends well beyond humankind’s immediate environs and encompasses not only our own solar system but also other galaxies. Hence, we reject the exploitation, commodification and militarization of space. We express our hope that the exploration and settlement of space, including the moon and other planetary bodies, take place peacefully and cooperatively, and in such fashion that the benefits and resources of any further exploration and development accrue to all humanity.”

You can see a brief discussion about the Apollo 1o mission at this Youtube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq8cyvmJMNQ

Don't Have Unrealistic Expectations about the New Tax Relief

 

I don’

photo from america250.org

I don't intend to throw cold water on a warm campfire, but also, I don’t want folk to have unrealistic expectations.

The Tax and Spending Bill, passed by Congress and soon to be signed by the President, provides for tax relief for many people.

But please don’t expect thousands of dollars.

I provide a “copy and paste” of explanation from a fact sheet published by the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Delivers on President Trump’s Commitment to American Workers

• No Tax on Tips:
• Eliminates income taxes on up to $25,000 of tips for the 4 million tipped workers, boosting incomes of tipped workers by $1,300.
• No Tax on Overtime:
• Eliminates income taxes on up to $12,500 of overtime pay premium for the over 80 million hourly workers, boosting incomes by $1,400.
• Tax Relief for Seniors:
• Middle- and low-income seniors will be able to deduct an additional $6,000.
• No Tax on Auto Loan Interest:
• The average American family will be able to fully deduct auto loan interest for new American-made cars.

*end of “copy and paste”*

Please pay attention to phrasing such as

*Eliminates income taxes on up to $25,000: Regarding tips, tipped workers will see an increase of $1300. This is an increase of $25 per week.

*Eliminates income taxes on up to $12,500: Regarding overtime, This increase of $1400 results in an extra $27 per week.

*deduct an additional $6,000: Regarding tax relief for seniors, this deduction of $6000 will result in an extra $12 per week for someone with a 10% tax rate.

For realistic and accurate expectations and planning, I suggest you consult your tax preparer to know how these policies will benefit you personally.

For more information you can visit the official Ways and Means website:

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2025/07/03/passed-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-the-largest-tax-cut-in-american-history/

The 1964 Transformation of the Democratic Party

 

Picture from LBJ Presidential Library

I post this writing as a citizen expressing my own personal views which are not to be construed nor inferred  as representing any organization or ministry of which I may be involved.

Being the ever-diligent student of history and political realignments as I am, I cannot refrain from commenting on a recent meme I have seen on Facebook.

The meme reads something like “It was Democrats that fought against abolition and Republicans that freed the slaves.”

This is one of the many circumstances in which the words are technically correct while the lack of proper context is (probably intentionally) misleading.

For those that may be old enough to remember, lived through, personally observed the height of the Civil Rights era, we know what a political tectonic shift occurred the moment Lydon Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It was reported, though I cannot find any credible evidence of the statement, that Johnson said “We have lost the South”. I believe that to be true whether Johnson said it or not.

The South, former Confederate states, upon LBJ’s signature on the Civil Rights legislation, immediately disengaged from the Democratic Party.

In short, the Democratic Party of the last sixty years is substantially different in policy than it had previously been before the Civil Rights Act.

Unlike meme posting influencers and manipulators of political emotion, I provide a deliberative and objective study on the matter by Ilyana Kuziemko  (Princeton) and Ebonya Washington (Columbia).

Their conclusion of the study states…

“The exodus of Southern whites from the Democratic Party is one of the most transformative, and controversial, political developments in twentieth-century American history. Using newly available data, we conclude that defection among racially conservative whites just after Democrats introduce sweeping Civil Rights legislation explains virtually all of the party’s losses in the region. We find essentially no role for either income growth in the region or (non-race-related) policy preferences in explaining why Democrats “lost” the South.”

Again, the Democratic Party of the last sixty years is substantially different from

the residual party of the Confederacy which existed before 1964.

For those of you who may care enough, I provide the link to the complete study by Kuziemko and Washington here:

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20161413

Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate - American Economic Association