When the Campaign Ad Fails the Fact Check

October 13, 2026October 13, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

Documented errors & misleading claims in Republican advertising show why political loyalty should never replace verification. Yet, do Democratic advertisings fare any better?

October 14, 2026

An ominous voice. An unflattering photograph. A frightening accusation. Thirty seconds later, the commercial ends—and the impression remains.

But what happens when the photograph shows the wrong person? When an accusation leaves out the timeline? When the study cited in small print does not examine the policy the candidate actually supports?

Those questions deserve attention before the next campaign commercial tells us what to believe.

A political debate scene with a heated exchange between two candidates at podiums, one man accusing the woman of being a 'porker,' while she sarcastically responds, surrounded by an engaged audience. — _{^{Who’s cheating whom? Who’s being true? The accusations fly, the crowd takes sides, and somewhere in the shouting, the truth gets drowned out.
Folks, when we care more about who wins the argument than whether the accusation is true, we’re the ones being fooled.}}

Recent reporting by KJZZ and FactCheck.org documents factual errors and misleading presentations in Republican and Republican-aligned advertising across several states. Some involve outright inaccuracies. Others take genuine statements or events and leave out facts necessary to understand them.

These examples do not establish what candidates privately expected voters to believe or whether they anticipated voters checking their claims. My interpretation is that this kind of advertising gains an advantage when viewers accept its message without examining the evidence.

That is a temptation we should recognize in ourselves. When an accusation fits what we already believe about the other party, it can feel convincing before we have checked a single fact.

In Arizona, an attack ad supporting Republican Rep. Eli Crane targeted Democratic challenger Jonathan Nez. Yet the No Going Back PAC commercial twice displayed photographs of Myron Lizer, Nez’s former vice president—not Nez himself. Lizer is a Republican and Trump supporter.

KJZZ reported the error on October 10 and noted that the images were corrected. That correction matters. So does the fact that an advertisement seeking to discredit a candidate initially failed to identify him correctly. This reporting establishes the photograph error; it does not independently resolve the ad’s underlying spending allegation.

In North Carolina, No Going Back PAC accused Democratic Senate candidate Roy Cooper of allowing approximately 16,000 rape kits to remain untested.

The backlog was real. The presentation of responsibility was misleading.

FactCheck.org reported that the kits were held by hundreds of local law enforcement agencies and had not been submitted to the state laboratory Cooper oversaw as attorney general. A later statewide inventory established the extent of the problem. That leaves room to question whether officials at multiple levels should have done more. It does not justify presenting the evidence as though Cooper personally controlled thousands of kits awaiting testing.

The same advertisement connected Cooper’s pandemic prison settlement to a convicted sex offender who later committed murder. But Jimmie Speight Jr. had completed his prison term before the settlement. His subsequent reinstatement to post-release supervision counted under the agreement, explaining his appearance on its list.

That distinction changes the story. An advertisement about public safety owes voters an accurate timeline, especially when it uses a horrifying crime to assign political blame.

In Pennsylvania and Texas, hospital-closure warnings provided another example.

Congressional Leadership Fund attacked Democrat Janelle Stelson in Pennsylvania’s 10th District with a claim involving up to 25 rural hospital closures. MAGA Inc. attacked Texas Senate candidate James Talarico with a warning involving 30 hospitals.

Both relied on a study assuming a public insurance option would reimburse hospitals at existing Medicare rates. FactCheck.org found that neither candidate had proposed that specific design; Talarico expressly supported higher reimbursement rates.

A study can be real while its use in an advertisement is misleading. Citing research does not establish that its assumptions match the candidate’s proposal.

In Michigan, an NRSC advertisement alleged that Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed had advocated abolishing prisons. FactCheck.org found that he had not.

Other attacks drew on genuine earlier statements about shifting police resources and reviewing prison sentences. Those positions are legitimate subjects for scrutiny. But voters also deserve their context and an accurate account of his current platform, which includes investment in law enforcement recruitment, retention and retirement.

These are specific failures by identifiable advertisers. Several ads came from outside political groups, so responsibility should be assigned to the sponsors rather than automatically to the candidates who benefited.

The criticism is straightforward: get the person right, preserve the timeline, represent the proposal accurately, and let the evidence support the accusation.

A party label cannot do that work.

Folks, the commercial that deserves our closest attention may be the one we find easiest to believe. Before repeating it, ask who paid for it, whether the original source says what the advertiser claims, and what information disappeared between the source and the screen.

We do not have to abandon our political convictions to demand honest advertising. We have to insist that those convictions survive contact with the facts.

The Fact Check Cannot Stop at Democratic Party

Democratic campaign advertising deserves the same scrutiny as Republican advertising—and recent examples show why.

It is easy to spot a questionable campaign commercial when it attacks someone we support. The harder test comes when it attacks someone we oppose.

A woman examines documents with a magnifying glass while taking notes, with a laptop displaying a political debate in the background. Papers and a coffee cup are on the table. — _{^{The Fact Checkers Never Stop}}

That is when a frightening accusation can feel like confirmation. We recognize the party label, agree with the message, and move on without checking what was left out.

But an advertisement does not become accurate because it comes from our preferred side.

Recent investigations by FactCheck.org and PolitiFact identify false or misleading claims in advertisements from Democratic candidates and Democratic-aligned organizations in Maine, Iowa, Georgia, Texas and Ohio. The problems vary: an accusation contradicted by the record, a quotation stripped of context, a procedural vote presented without a later substantive vote, or a projection delivered without its qualifications.

These examples do not tell us what candidates privately expected voters to believe. My interpretation is that such advertising benefits when viewers accept a message that fits their political loyalties without examining its evidence.

In Maine, WinSenate, a super PAC supporting Democratic Senate candidates, accused Republican Sen. Susan Collins of helping conceal the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Collins did oppose an amendment attached to a defense bill. That is a real vote and a legitimate subject for criticism. But she subsequently supported the standalone disclosure legislation that passed the Senate by unanimous consent in November 2025.

FactCheck.org found that the advertisements misleadingly presented her record by leaving out that later support.

One ad also characterized a major donor to a pro-Collins super PAC as Epstein’s business partner. Its basis was that Stephen Schwarzman and Epstein were among the founding members of the same private club. That does not, by itself, establish the close business relationship the description suggests.

An advertiser owes voters more than an alarming name and an insinuation.

A separate Maine advertisement from Majority Forward claimed Collins did not believe insider trading should be illegal.

FactCheck.org found that claim false. Collins helped write and pass the 2012 STOCK Act, which affirmed that members of Congress are subject to insider-trading prohibitions.

She opposed a complete congressional stock-trading ban. Critics can challenge that position and the adequacy of existing enforcement. But opposing a blanket trading ban is different from supporting illegal insider trading.

The advertisement blurred that distinction to turn a policy disagreement into a more damaging accusation.

In Iowa, WinSenate attacked Republican Senate candidate Ashley Hinson over the Epstein files.

Hinson had opposed procedural efforts related to disclosure. Yet she voted for the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, when it passed the House 427–1.

PolitiFact rated the claim that she voted against releasing the files Mostly False because the advertisement omitted her later vote for release.

The advertising also emphasized donors whose names appeared in the files. A name appearing in those records does not, on its own, demonstrate wrongdoing or a close relationship with Epstein.

Voters deserve the complete voting record and evidence proportionate to the accusation.

In Georgia, Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff’s television ads used a shortened recording of Republican challenger Mike Collins discussing Social Security and returning to the workforce.

The advertisements framed his remarks as a threat to retirees. But PolitiFact found that the full interview concerned making work more financially advantageous through lower taxes. Collins had not instructed retirees to surrender their benefits and get jobs.

There are substantive reasons to examine his policies: he supported measures that experts warned could threaten future benefits. Those concerns deserve accurate discussion.

They do not justify editing a quotation into a message its speaker did not deliver. PolitiFact rated the advertisement’s combined claim Mostly False.

In Texas, Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico’s campaign said Republican Ken Paxton voted to protect puppy abusers.

The underlying vote concerned a 2011 bill increasing the bond required when someone appealed a civil court’s finding of animal cruelty. The measure did not increase penalties for animal abuse itself.

Paxton did not explain his opposition. Other opponents raised concerns about procedural fairness and the cost of appeals.

PolitiFact rated Talarico’s claim Mostly False. A vote about appeal requirements can be criticized on its merits. It does not establish that the lawmaker intended to protect animal abusers.

Ohio supplies a more qualified example.

Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown’s advertisement said Republican Sen. Jon Husted voted to remove 490,000 Ohioans from their healthcare coverage.

PolitiFact found the number broadly consistent with credible estimates of losses from Medicaid changes and the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. But it was a projection over ten years, subject to implementation and other uncertainties—not a completed count of people already losing insurance.

Husted’s record also included a later proposal to extend the subsidies.

The claim received a Half True rating. It should not be lumped together with an invented accusation. The criticism here concerns missing qualifications and the presentation of uncertainty.

These findings establish specific advertising failures. They do not measure which party misleads more often, and they do not make every claim equally wrong.

Responsibility also matters. Ads purchased by WinSenate or Majority Forward should be attributed to those organizations rather than automatically to the Democratic candidates who might benefit.

The standard should remain consistent: preserve the context, explain the vote, distinguish estimates from established results, and support accusations with evidence.

Folks, our own side should not receive a discount on truth.

Before sharing the commercial that confirms everything we already believe, we should check the original statement, the complete record and the sponsor’s supporting evidence.

Our political convictions may guide our vote. They should never decide which facts we are willing to see.

Signature of Benjamin Groff with copyright information and website link.

Sources

PolitiFact, October 9, 2026

Sources

FactCheck.org, October 1, 2026

FactCheck.org, July 7, 2026

PolitiFact, October 2, 2026

PolitiFact, September 15, 2026

PolitiFact, October 12, 2026

Morning Coffee: What If We Had Kept Our Promises?

October 13, 2026October 9, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

What if there had been no Trail of Tears?

October 13, 2026

Well, if you survived Monday, pour yourself a cup. Depending on your calendar and community, you may have called it Columbus Day, Indigenous Peoples’ Day, or Native American Day.

woman in yellow jacket and brown white floral apron holding yellow white ceramic mug — _{^{Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com}}

Whatever name you used, it got me thinking about the Oklahoma of my childhood.

When we played Cowboys and Indians on the playground, we had the real McCoys on both sides—kids from cowboy families and kids from Native families.

Sadly, the cowboys always seemed to win, and our Native friends went along with it. That was simply how we played. I don’t remember anyone questioning why the ending had already been decided.

Now that I am older, I realize how sad that was. Truly sad. Even in a childhood game, we were repeating the story we had been taught: who got to be the hero, who was expected to lose, and whose side of the story hardly mattered.

Had I understood then what I understand now, I would have wanted more victories for my friends—and a chance for them to tell the story their way.

But we had been programmed. Before we were old enough to question the script, we already knew our parts.

Growing up, we commonly used the word “Indian.” We also watched television westerns where Indians fought cowboys, and the script usually told us whom to cheer for before anyone fired a shot.

Looking back, television was doing a fair amount of our thinking for us.

I still have Native friends who call themselves Indians. That is their choice, and I respect it. People deserve to tell us who they are, rather than have the rest of us decide for them.

The Oklahoma I remember has changed. Tribal businesses and casinos became increasingly visible over the years, especially after I moved away. Places I associated with one chapter of my childhood began to look very different.

But seeing a changing landscape and understanding its history are two different things.

For years, I wondered how land purchased by a tribe became tribal land. I also confused that question with whether the land was sacred. Those are different matters: sacredness concerns religious and cultural significance, while trust status involves a legal process through which the federal government holds land for a tribe or an individual Native person.

Still, understanding that distinction leaves me with a larger question: How did we arrive at a place where Native nations sometimes have to buy back portions of the lands they lost?

That question stays with me longer than the explanations about deeds and boundaries.

What might this country look like if settlers and the governments that followed them had respected Native nations’ right to govern themselves? If agreements had been honored? If families had not been forced from their homes?

What if there had been no Trail of Tears?

Would we be better off today? Would our relationships with one another be different? What knowledge, traditions, and possibilities might have survived that were instead disrupted or lost?

I am not looking for an argument over my morning coffee. I am wondering about the distance between the history we inherited and the history we might have made.

We cannot know exactly how that other America would have turned out. But uncertainty about what might have been does not erase what actually happened.

Perhaps that is what this day brings to my table: a reason to look beyond the television westerns of my childhood and listen to the people whose histories those scripts so often pushed aside.

My coffee cannot change yesterday. But I can still learn something today.

The reference to forced removal and the Trail of Tears is supported by the National Park Service’s historical account. nps.gov

Signature of Benjamin Groff along with copyright and attribution information.

Border Wall Dispute Raises Questions About Public Safety and Local Resources

October 12, 2026October 11, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

[SPECIAL EDITION]

“They keep building the border wall. If nothing else, it gives politicians something to crow about. Though these days, you have to wonder whether anyone’s still asking for directions to get here.”
— Imagining Will Rogers weighing in from the grave…

October 12, 2026

A dispute over border wall construction in southern Arizona has become a disagreement over law enforcement responsibilities, public safety, and the resources available to a county sheriff’s office.

In an October 9 open letter, the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association raised concerns about allegedly unanswered requests for assistance during protests in Santa Cruz County. The association said federal and state officials had reported incidents involving alleged violence, threats, and property damage. It called for those allegations to be documented and investigated.

_{^{The video above was from six months ago. Then there didn’t appear any issues with getting the wall up. Since that time those building Trump’s border wall cut into an ancient ground carving older than Stonehenge. The Las Playas Intaglio carving of a huge fish is at least 2,000 years older than the first Egyptian pyramid, according to researchers’ estimations.}}

The letter also attributed to Sheriff David Hathaway a policy limiting deputies’ responses to protest-related calls to incidents involving violence. Whether particular requests involved criminal conduct, and how his office handled them, requires further examination. According to Arizona’s Family’s report, the sheriff’s office had not responded to the station’s request for comment.

The dispute follows an October 5 federal operation at a protest encampment near Lochiel. Arizona’s Family reported that video showed a protester being removed from a cottonwood tree using a cherry picker before the tree was cut down. Activists had occupied the site to oppose construction of a second border barrier. That confrontation is described here.

The public safety questions deserve attention. So does the capacity of the local agency being asked to respond.

Santa Cruz County covers approximately 1,236 square miles of land and had an estimated population of 50,020 in July 2025. The Border Sheriffs directory lists 39 sworn officers for its sheriff’s office, although that listing does not establish current staffing or the number available for patrol on any particular shift.

colorful license plate wall display in canada — _{^{America has long welcomed people who came to do business—or simply escape winter for a little sunshine. This year, some businesses in those sunny destinations say fewer visitors are returning, and trade has slowed to a crawl. The sunshine is still here. The customers, it seems, are checking the forecast for more than the weather.}}

From my experience in law enforcement, an agency’s total sworn strength can give a misleading impression of its available manpower. Days off, training, leave, investigations, supervision, and other assignments affect how many officers can answer calls. A fair assessment should examine actual deployment and workload before drawing conclusions about available resources.

Staffing constraints do not erase a sheriff’s responsibilities. Arizona law requires sheriffs to preserve the peace and address public offenses and disturbances. Whether those duties were fulfilled here should be evaluated through dispatch records, incident reports, requests for assistance, and the sheriff’s explanation.

Federal agencies should also explain how they planned to manage demonstrations and coordinate with local authorities. Construction that draws sustained opposition requires clear arrangements for emergency response, protection of lawful protest, and investigation of alleged crimes.

The association has offered available assistance through the Arizona Department of Public Safety if requested. That offers a possible route toward cooperation while preserving the county sheriff’s independent authority.

My concern is whether the agencies involved have established a workable plan that protects residents, protesters, workers, and officers without leaving routine county services short of personnel. Answering that question requires documented facts, an opportunity for all sides to respond, and a realistic accounting of resources.

Signature of Benjamin Groff with attribution and copyright information.

The Legacy That Remained Above Ground

October 10, 2026October 7, 2026Benjamin1 Comment

A memorial holds meaning beyond its concrete, marble, steel and glass. Its name tells future generations whom a nation chose to remember. Its halls preserve music, theater, ceremony and shared experience.

October 10, 2026

In my 63 years, America has traveled an extraordinary distance. Yet some shadows seem to follow us from one generation into another.

Paper collage featuring American flags, Capitol, White House, Statue of Liberty, and civic buildings — _{^{This mornings coffee is going to be layered. Get ready.}}

I was born in 1963, during the Kennedy presidency. His assassination belongs to the beginning of my life, even though it lies beyond my earliest memories. For Americans old enough to remember November 22 of that year, the news from Dallas became a dividing line: before, and after.

The Kennedy years had already brought their share of danger. In April 1961, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion—developed under the Eisenhower administration and authorized by Kennedy—became one of his earliest foreign-policy crises.

Then came Dallas.

Questions involving the Soviet Union quickly became part of the national conversation. Lee Harvey Oswald had lived there, married a Russian woman and visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City shortly before the assassination.

Those circumstances fed suspicion. Official investigations, however, did not establish Soviet involvement. The Warren Commission found no evidence that a foreign government had employed or encouraged Oswald to assassinate Kennedy. The House Select Committee on Assassinations later concluded, on the evidence available to it, that the Soviet government was not involved.

Still, the suspicion never entirely disappeared from the American imagination.

And America continued through a succession of moments that once seemed unimaginable.

On March 31, 1968, President Lyndon Baines Johnson announced that he would neither seek nor accept his party’s nomination for another term. The Vietnam War consumed the nation, and political divisions continued to deepen.

That June, Robert Kennedy was assassinated while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Vietnam stretched across presidencies, taking American lives and leaving divisions that remained long after the troops came home.

Then came Watergate.

Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, as impeachment proceedings advanced against him. On September 8, President Gerald Ford granted him a pardon for federal offenses committed or potentially committed during his presidency.

The country moved forward, carrying another argument about power and accountability.

Then came the Iran hostage crisis.

Fifty-two Americans endured 444 days of captivity following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Negotiations during the Carter administration produced the agreement securing their freedom. They were released on January 20, 1981, as Carter left office and Ronald Reagan became president.

During Reagan’s presidency came Iran-Contra: secret weapons sales to Iran and the diversion of proceeds to support the Contras in Nicaragua. Reagan initially denied trading arms for hostages, but later acknowledged that the initiative had deteriorated into precisely that.

Under George H. W. Bush, America went to war in the Persian Gulf after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

During the Clinton years, we witnessed the deadly conclusion of the Branch Davidian standoff near Waco, Texas.

Aerial view of a damaged building with significant structural collapse on one side, exposing debris and rubble, surrounded by a cityscape. — _{^{Alfred P. Murrah Building Okc, Oklahoma.}}

Two years later, Timothy McVeigh, aided by Terry Nichols, carried out the Oklahoma City bombing. The attack killed 168 people, including 19 children. It remains the deadliest act of homegrown terrorism in American history.

Then came September 11, 2001.

During George W. Bush’s presidency, nineteen al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes. Nearly 3,000 people were killed in attacks that changed the country and the world.

A decade later, during the Obama administration, U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden.

And still America continued.

Donald Trump became the 45th president. Joe Biden followed as the 46th. Trump returned as the 47th.

Russia again became entangled in an American presidency, under circumstances very different from the suspicions surrounding Kennedy’s assassination.

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, an assessment upheld by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. The Mueller investigation documented numerous campaign contacts involving Russia, but did not establish that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

These episodes do not establish a common conspiracy. They show how questions of foreign influence, presidential power and public trust can echo across generations.

Then, on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have absolute criminal immunity for conduct within their exclusive constitutional authority and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts. Unofficial acts receive no presidential immunity. The decision reshaped the legal boundaries of presidential accountability.

Now we find ourselves back at the Kennedy name.

Congress designated the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as a living memorial in 1964. In September 2026, a federal judge again blocked efforts to add Trump’s name without congressional authorization. The board then voted for an extended renovation closure. Trump said repairs would depend on approval of the naming proposal.

Management separately cited structural safety concerns for a temporary closure, while the board’s renovation decision remained under court scrutiny.

The dispute widened further when a judge required advance notice before demolition and bipartisan lawmakers proposed legislation requiring congressional approval before a presidential memorial could be demolished. As of October 2, that proposal had not become law. These developments do not establish that demolition has begun, but they give the question of preservation immediate importance.

For me, that brings these years into an unsettling circle.

A presidency ended in Dallas. A cultural institution was later dedicated to keeping that president’s memory alive.

Nearly 63 years after his death, Americans are arguing over what can be done to that memorial, whose name it may carry and who has the authority to decide.

Repairs deserve careful attention. So do the laws and public responsibilities attached to the place being repaired.

Who decides what name a national memorial carries?

How much authority should a sitting president have to reshape an institution dedicated by Congress to another?

And when does renovation become reinvention?

Those questions reach beyond the Kennedy Center.

Across my lifetime, I have watched presidents come and go, wars begin and end, and scandals shake institutions that once seemed beyond question. The country has endured pressures that appeared capable of breaking it.

Survival, however, does not settle every question. We must still decide what we carry forward.

Some things belong to the American people across generations. Each administration inherits responsibility for them. Each generation receives something it did not build alone.

That inheritance asks something of us.

What parts are ours to change—and what parts have we been entrusted to preserve for those who come after us?

Kennedy’s presidency ended in Dallas.

rockets in kennedy space center in usa — _{^{Photo by Luis Bettiol on Pexels.com}}

His name survived on schools, highways, airports, a space center and one of America’s most important cultural institutions.

That is why the argument over the Kennedy Center reaches beyond performance halls and construction plans. It concerns the care we give to a memory entrusted to us.

Kennedy’s coffin was closed nearly 63 years ago.

The more unsettling question is what we will preserve of the legacy that remained above ground.

Signature of Benjamin Groff followed by copyright information and website details.

Morning Coffee: Father Time Clocks In

September 20, 2026September 18, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

Warren Buffett says Father Time always wins. At 96, he has stepped down as chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, leaving me to wonder: Did anyone ever call him at bedtime because the evening shift was short?

September 20, 2026

###

Warren Buffett, age approximately one thousand, has stepped down as chairman of Berkshire Hathaway.

I included “Berkshire” because if I had said only “Hathaway,” some of you might have pictured Miss Jane from The Beverly Hillbillies. At Buffett’s age, I half expect her to step out of a closet with a ledger and tell him Mr. Drysdale needs him at the bank.

Buffett is actually 96.

His son Howard, a youthful 71, is taking over as chairman.

Greg Abel is already running the company as CEO, so Howard won’t have to spend his first day learning where they keep the keys to every Dairy Queen.

Buffett said, “Father Time always wins.” He is right about that. But I do wonder what retirement feels like when your workday has involved moving billions of dollars. Did anyone ever call just as he was getting into bed and say, “Warren, the evening shift is short. Can you come in?” Did he ever have to find someone to cover a holiday weekend?

I’m sure his work carried pressures I’ll never know. Still, I hope Howard is ready for the family tradition: putting in a few decades at Berkshire, reaching his seventies, and being told it’s finally his turn to take the chair.

As for Warren, I hope he enjoys retirement. He can sleep in, take a leisurely breakfast, and resist the urge to check how much the coffee company is worth.

Then again, after a lifetime of working, perhaps the hardest part is simply sitting down long enough to drink the coffee while it’s hot.

In 63 years, America has traveled an extraordinary distance, and yet some shadows seem to follow us from one generation into another.

September 18, 2026September 16, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

September 18, 2026

Illuminated modern building beside calm water with Washington Monument in distance

When President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas on November 22, 1963, questions involving the Soviet Union quickly became part of the national conversation. Lee Harvey Oswald had lived in the Soviet Union, had a Russian wife, and had visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City shortly before the assassination. Those facts helped feed suspicions that have persisted for generations.

Official investigations, however, did not establish that the Soviet government ordered or participated in Kennedy’s murder. The Warren Commission found no evidence that Oswald had been employed or encouraged by a foreign government, and a later congressional investigation likewise concluded that the Soviet government was not involved.

Still, the suspicion never entirely disappeared from the American imagination.

More than half a century later, Russia would again become entangled in an American presidency—this time under very different circumstances. U.S. intelligence agencies and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Investigations also documented numerous contacts between people associated with Donald Trump’s campaign and individuals connected to Russia, although those investigations did not establish that the Trump family had joined a Russian conspiracy to control the election.

The circumstances were different.

The questions were different.

But Russia had once again become part of an American argument about a president, political power and public trust.

And somewhere between those two moments stands the name John F. Kennedy.

In 1963, that name became permanently attached to a national tragedy.

Sixty-three years later, it has again become part of a national political struggle.

In 63 years, we have watched America pass through moments that once seemed almost unimaginable.

Some of us were born into an America still carrying the optimism of the Kennedy years. Then came the Bay of Pigs, the failed 1961 invasion of Cuba authorized by President John F. Kennedy after the operation had originally been developed during the Eisenhower administration. It became one of Kennedy’s earliest foreign-policy crises.

Then, on November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

Five years later, his brother Robert Kennedy was assassinated while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination.

That same turbulent year, 1968, President Lyndon Baines Johnson surprised the nation by announcing that he would neither seek nor accept his party’s nomination for another term. His decision came while the Vietnam War consumed the nation and political divisions at home continued to deepen.

Vietnam itself stretched across presidencies, taking American lives and leaving divisions that remained long after the troops came home.

Then came Watergate.

President Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, as impeachment proceedings advanced against him. One month later, President Gerald Ford granted Nixon a full presidential pardon for federal offenses he had committed or might have committed while in office.

America moved forward again.

Then came the Iran hostage crisis.

Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days after the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was seized in 1979. President Jimmy Carter paid an enormous political price for the crisis. Yet negotiations conducted by his administration produced the agreement that ultimately secured their freedom. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981—the day Carter left office and Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.

Then, during the Reagan administration, came Iran-Contra.

Weapons were secretly sold to Iran as administration officials sought assistance in securing the freedom of American hostages held in Lebanon, while money from the transactions was diverted to support the Contra forces in Nicaragua. Reagan initially rejected the characterization that weapons had been traded for hostages, but later acknowledged that the facts showed the initiative had deteriorated into exactly that.

Under President George H. W. Bush, America went to war in the Persian Gulf after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

During the Clinton years, turmoil came from both abroad and within our own borders. We witnessed the deadly conclusion of the Branch Davidian standoff near Waco, Texas, in 1993. Two years later, Timothy McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, including 19 children. As of Sept 16, 2026 it remains the deadliest act of homegrown terrorism in American history.

Then came September 11, 2001.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, nineteen al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes. Two struck the World Trade Center towers, another struck the Pentagon, and the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers and crew fought back. Nearly 3,000 people were killed.

A decade later, during the Obama administration, U.S. forces located and killed Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader who had directed the September 11 attacks.

And still America continued.

Donald Trump became the 45th president. Joe Biden followed as the 46th. Trump returned as the 47th.

During those years another consequential development occurred. In July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that former presidents possess absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions falling within their core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for other official presidential acts. The decision significantly altered the legal framework surrounding presidential power and accountability.

Now another American institution has become part of that continuing argument over government, presidential power, history and national identity: the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

The Kennedy Center was created as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy. In 2026, efforts by its Trump-aligned leadership to place President Trump’s name on the building and grounds were blocked by a federal judge, who ruled that such changes require congressional authorization. Shortly afterward, the board voted to close most of the Kennedy Center for as long as two years for what it described as renovations and safety repairs. Fencing has since gone up around the complex.

And perhaps that is why the Kennedy Center has become symbolic of something larger.

Not because one building defines America.

It does not.

But because institutions accumulate meaning.

A memorial is not simply concrete, marble, steel and glass. Its name tells future generations whom a nation chose to remember. Its halls preserve music, theater, ceremony and history. Its identity becomes part of the historical record.

That is why changes to such places matter.

America rarely loses its identity in one dramatic moment. History suggests that change more often comes piece by piece—through elections, court decisions, wars, scandals, legislation, cultural struggles and arguments over institutions that once seemed permanent.

Sometimes those changes strengthen the country.

Sometimes Americans decide later that they went too far.

And sometimes a generation does not realize how much has changed until it turns around and looks at everything that disappeared along the way.

For those of us who have lived these 63 years, that may be the greater lesson.

We have watched presidents come and go. We have watched wars begin and end. We have watched assassinations, terrorist attacks, political scandals and constitutional crises. We have watched the country bend under pressures that, at the time, appeared capable of breaking it.

Yet the buildings themselves were never really the foundation.

The foundation was the agreement that some things belonged not to one president, one political party or one generation, but to the American people.

And perhaps that is the question confronting us again:

What parts of our national inheritance are merely ours to change—and what parts have we been entrusted to preserve for those who come after us?

And now we find ourselves back at the Kennedy name.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was designated by Congress as a living memorial to the slain president. In 2026, a political and legal struggle developed over efforts by the Kennedy Center’s Trump-aligned leadership to place President Donald Trump’s name on the institution and its grounds. A federal judge ruled that such changes require congressional authorization. Shortly afterward, the board voted to close most of the Center for extensive renovations, and fencing appeared around the complex. The administration says the closure is necessary for repairs; opponents have challenged the actions surrounding the Center and fear permanent changes to its identity.

That brings these 63 years into an almost haunting circle.

They began for many of us with the gunshots in Dallas and the destruction of a presidency.

They now bring us to a building created so that the name of that president—and what his generation represented—would remain alive long after those gunshots faded.

I hesitate to call what is happening at the Kennedy Center the destruction of the building itself, because that has not been established. But symbolically, something much larger is being argued over.

Who owns a national memorial?

Who decides what name it carries?

How much authority should any sitting president have to reshape an institution created by Congress to memorialize another?

And when does renovation become reinvention?

Perhaps that is where the Kennedy Center becomes more than another Washington building surrounded by fencing.

For those who remember November 1963, it can represent the closing of an extraordinary historical circle.

Kennedy was killed by an assassin’s bullet.

His presidency ended in Dallas.

But his name survived.

It survived on schools, highways, airports, a space center and one of America’s most important cultural institutions.

That is why what happens to the Kennedy Center matters beyond marble, concrete and performance halls.

A nation can bury a president.

It can survive his assassination.

But the more difficult question comes generations later:

Does it continue to protect the memory entrusted to it?

Perhaps the Kennedy Center should not be described as the final nail in President Kennedy’s coffin.

Kennedy’s coffin was closed 63 years ago.

The more unsettling possibility is that we are deciding, 63 years later, what becomes of the legacy that remained above ground.

Ordinary Things – When Did We All Start Hopping?

September 6, 2026September 3, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

It Used To Be Please, Just Step Out of the Car”

September 6, 2026

For coffee this morning I am sharing a pet peeve that has been picking at me lately.

Nothing serious. Nothing that is going to keep me awake at night. But it does irk me.

SUV with open doors parked on a suburban street at dusk — ***“Come on, hop out of the car…I just want you to hop for me”***

It is this hopping thing.

Somewhere along the way, people began asking other grown adults to hop everywhere.

I notice it especially in police videos. It has leaked over into television comercials. And, I have heard waitresses refer to it, when seating people at restaurants. But, I mainly hear it those police videos.

An officer stops a vehicle, walks up to the driver and eventually says something like:

“Go ahead and hop out of the vehicle for me.”

Hop?

Have you ever actually seen a grown adult hop out of a car?

Outside of Easter, a sack race, or perhaps New Year’s Eve after somebody has had far too much to drink, I cannot remember seeing many adults hopping anywhere.

Yet law enforcement officers across the country now seem determined to get us hopping.

“Hop out for me.”

“Hop over here.”

“Hop in the back seat.”

Maybe that explains why some people in those YouTube videos refuse to get out of the car. Perhaps the instruction simply does not register.

Imagine a grown man appearing at your front door and saying:

“Sir, would you hop out onto the lawn for me?”

Would you?

I would probably stand there wondering exactly what kind of hop he had in mind.

Eventually, in some of these police videos, after several requests for the driver to “hop out,” patience disappears, a window gets broken, and the person is physically removed from the vehicle.

At that point, strangely enough, nobody is hopping.

Well, except perhaps the officers, who suddenly seem to be hopping around one another trying to get the person handcuffed.

Then comes the next instruction.

“Go ahead and hop into the back seat.”

Think about that for a moment.

The person is now handcuffed, standing beside a police car, possibly having just been dragged out of another automobile, and someone is asking them to hop into the back seat of a car driven by a complete stranger.

That requires considerably more coordination than I possess.

But the hopping is not finished.

Eventually they arrive at what officials may call a detention facility, processing center, correctional intake facility, or any number of impressive names.

Let us save some time.

It is jail.

The officers open the patrol-car door and what do you suppose comes next?

“Come on and hop out for me.”

Another hop.

Before the experience is finished, the poor person may have been asked to hop out, hop over, hop in, hop back out, and possibly hop onto a bench.

When exactly did hop become the standard instruction for grown adults?

What happened to:

“Please step out of the vehicle.”

“Step to the rear of the car.”

“Come back here and speak with me.”

Those instructions sound perfectly reasonable. More importantly, I know exactly what they mean.

There is another reason I think words matter.

Sometimes an officer is asking someone to step out of a vehicle because doing so may actually prevent a situation from becoming worse. A conversation beside the vehicle might clear something up. It might reveal information the driver needs to know. It might even keep that person from making another mistake that results in an additional charge.

Crime prevention, after all, is one of the most important parts of police work.

And preventing someone from turning one bad decision into three?

Well, that really is something worth hopping about.

Before You Buy the Promise Again – Stop. And, See What You Have…

July 15, 2026July 13, 2026Benjamin3 Comments

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

July 15, 2026

There was a time when buying a loaf of bread was about as controversial as life could become.

Politics has become much the same way. Somewhere along the road we stopped asking one simple question:

Today, mentioning the price of that same loaf can start an argument.

“Did the last promises work?”

Every election season arrives with a fresh collection of guarantees. Taxes will go down. Jobs will multiply. Government will shrink. Crime will disappear. Inflation will be conquered. Our freedoms will be protected. We are assured that prosperity is just one election away.

Then four years pass.

The speeches become campaign commercials. The commercials become memories. And before long, many of us find ourselves hearing nearly the same promises from many of the same people, while somehow convincing ourselves this time the outcome will be different.

Perhaps before accepting another promise, we should compare it with the last one.

What were we told in 2024?

What actually happened?

Not what our favorite television network says happened. Not what social media insists happened. What changed in our own lives?

What happened to grocery prices?

What happened to gasoline?

Could you buy more—or less—with the paycheck you earned?

Did your insurance go up?

Did your property taxes change?

Did your retirement account grow or shrink?

Did your neighborhood become safer?

Those answers are far more valuable than any campaign slogan.

None of this means every promise failed. Governments accomplish some things and fall short on others. The honest voter should be willing to acknowledge both.

That requires something becoming increasingly rare in America—an honest inventory.

The next time someone tells you what tomorrow will look like, don’t begin by looking forward.

Begin by looking backward.

History may not predict the future, but it usually leaves enough footprints to tell us where we’ve already walked.Years ago, neighbors could spend an afternoon arguing over whosesourdough recipe made the better loaf, and everyone still shared a slice afterward.

Today, mention the price of that loaf—or the politician who promised to make it cheaper—and you may lose a friend before the bread comes out of the oven. That’s unfortunate, because both subjects have something in common. Good bread takes patience, honest ingredients, and careful attention. Good government should require no less. ––– Benjamin!

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

SPECIAL STATEMENT FROM BENANDSTEVE.COM

July 12, 2026July 12, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

~ Throughout history there have always been those who stood firm, and those who surrendered their principles for the sake of comfort or fear. Those who exchanged their standards out of weakness and bowed to a tyranny are rarely remembered among the notable. History tends to reserve that honor for those who stood their ground when it mattered most. ~ Benjamin Groff

When a Rainbow Means Safety: Somewhere Beyond the Hatred Lies Hope

June 30, 2026June 17, 2026Benjamin3 Comments

June 30, 2026

Why Pride Month, the rainbow flag, and the simple act of being seen still matter.

https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-4/XFKTzEzZ1bip32itk4W5XFIP_PwAjw-qhLj2EnqapCatZVEZvTsULp_KdEsO3o0cAp6X8kuwg0a3OFf106ABW3f30wfZZpwTQA23DB7_ID-kp12pmd0ebig7rf8FtcWpzSP2wqXTcdQHE_wbcoEmu1X-q4Ku0TuCgfayxRBwM4CbJOG9LQpp-E5neza2R5yO?purpose=fullsize

https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-4/rvjutFF4tahsHgozJ2Ekh-tBjVk_AmOLjqtjlYfiPMqKqgDHqP-iaUrVePg_wm0y8-TZItoJPRMRXmWX0Y8ZwTpNxwk9PEqZKVVuc3gf1YVr765lKRqYEkgxWluZ_Ja9SBrJFxvDAnjNEiwvqO1hj0WNv2jIbd_xZuBNlWXl-RrOHYGpKR0sOeOxMdxpdzp2?purpose=fullsize

https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-4/_DzkDyZNXVamFofmDjXifthRCkww1nAD5zhKmF67ABDS-o5D_vr__XJ32EULwhN3w8FTjZPK1sgnOQ5Rz8KyHJxl0MkwmmN56l9nEQCw4tD2-PHcj7dWXGFocMfDbMTw0idYynN3CLl5pwNwDBK1riS9n_hv5v62aF6frYKI2S4O-EBV5zOkLns8k0UmO2vG?purpose=fullsize

There are moments when people ask a sincere question:

Why is there a Pride Month? Why the rainbow flag? Why all of the celebration?

For many people, the answer is simple.

Because there are still nights when someone leaves a restaurant holding the hand of the person they love and wonders if they will make it home safely.

Recently in the small city of Caldwell, a gay couple, Juan Olvera and Eric Reed, say they were enjoying dinner at a local restaurant when they became the target of homophobic slurs from a group of men. The couple left, hoping to avoid confrontation. Instead, they say they were followed, chased through a parking lot and onto nearby railroad tracks, and assaulted. One man suffered a black eye, cuts, and bruises. The other required stitches after being struck in the face. Police arrested one suspect and filed a misdemeanor battery charge. Idaho law does not currently include sexual orientation among its hate crime protections.

The physical wounds will heal.

The fear takes longer.

Juan Olvera told reporters:

“I literally thought I was going to die.”

Think about that sentence.

Not in a war.

Not while committing a crime.

Not while threatening anyone.

But simply because he was gay.

And that is why Pride exists.

The rainbow flag is not a declaration of superiority.

It is not a political party.

It is not an attack on anyone else’s beliefs.

It is a signal.

It says:

I am here.
I have survived.
I should not have to hide.
I deserve to live openly and safely.

For some people, Pride is a parade.

For others, it is a quiet acknowledgment that they made it through years of fear, rejection, ridicule, or violence.

Many older LGBTQ Americans remember when they could lose jobs for being gay.

They remember being denied housing.

They remember police raids on bars.

They remember the terror of the AIDS epidemic.

And yes, they remember the beatings.

The rainbow became a symbol because symbols matter.

Flags matter.

They tell stories.

The American flag tells the story of a nation striving toward liberty.

The rainbow flag tells the story of people striving toward dignity.

Neither promises perfection.

Both represent hope.

This story from Idaho is not offered to inflame anger or divide people further.

It is offered as a reminder.

Behind every Pride flag is a person.

Behind every Pride Month celebration is someone who once wondered whether they would be accepted by their family, their church, their community—or even survive.

Most people, regardless of politics, agree on one thing:

No one should fear violence because of who they are.

No one should be beaten for holding the hand of the person they love.

No one should have to wonder whether tomorrow will bring acceptance or hatred.

That is not a gay issue.

That is a human issue.

And until stories like this become relics of the past rather than headlines of the present, there will continue to be Pride Month.

There will continue to be rainbow flags.

There will continue to be people saying:

We are here. We are your neighbors. We are your family. And we hope one day these reminders are no longer necessary.

Benjamin Groff II
Groff Media © Truth Endures

When Faith and Politics Collide Nay-Sayers Claim James Talarico Is Possessed By An Evil Spirit

June 15, 2026June 14, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

June 15, 2026

When Faith and Politics Collide

James Talarico is a Presbyterian seminarian running for the U.S. Senate in Texas, and his comments about Christianity have ignited a fierce debate.

The controversy began after Talarico told comedian and host Stephen Colbert that Jesus never explicitly mentioned abortion or same-sex marriage in the Gospels. The reaction from some conservative commentators was immediate and intense.

Podcaster Benny Johnson accused him of distorting Christianity. A host on Newsmax questioned his interpretation of scripture. Even Riley Moore suggested on a political program that Talarico’s views were spiritually dangerous.

Yet the passages Talarico cites are among the most familiar in the Bible.

In Matthew 22, Jesus summarizes the law with two commands: love God and love your neighbor. In Matthew 25, he speaks of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, welcoming strangers, caring for the sick, and visiting prisoners.

These are not obscure verses tucked away in scripture. They are central teachings, repeated in sermons, printed on church walls, and taught to generations of Christians.

For Talarico, these passages point toward a simple but profound idea: that society is measured by how it treats those who are vulnerable—the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, and the outsider.

Others disagree with his political conclusions or argue that Christian teachings encompass a broader set of moral issues. That disagreement is not new. American politics has long wrestled with competing interpretations of faith and public life.

What makes this moment notable is how intensely the argument has become personal.

Critics accuse Talarico of misrepresenting Christianity. Supporters argue he is reminding people of teachings they believe have been overshadowed by political battles.

Whatever side one takes, the underlying questions remain:

Who gets to define the role of faith in public life?

What teachings deserve the greatest emphasis?

And can political movements built around religious identity tolerate interpretations that challenge their assumptions?

These are not questions that will be settled in a television interview, a podcast, or a campaign speech.

But they are questions Americans continue to ask.

And the verses themselves remain where they have always been—waiting in the pages of scripture, inviting each reader to decide what they mean and how they should be lived.

Meanwhile –

Ted Cruz said James Talarico isn’t “masculine,” and Talarico answered with a list of what real men never do. The smear came Monday on Fox News, where Cruz declared that if you were making a list of 1,000 adjectives to describe the Texas Democrat, “masculine” would not be one of them, then added that a stiff breeze would blow him over like a feather.

The attack was not a one-off. Since Talarico won the Democratic nomination and pulled ahead of Ken Paxton in the polls, the Republican machine has gone all in on manhood.

Paxton called him “too low-T for Texas.” White House aide Stephen Miller falsely claimed Democrats had nominated “their first transgender senate candidate,” a lie about a man who is neither transgender nor, for the record, the vegan they also keep insisting he is.

None of it touches his actual record. That is the point.

On MS NOW with Jen Psaki on Thursday, Talarico took the question head on, and he answered it with a lawn mower.

He told the story of Mark Talarico, the adoptive father who gave him his last name.

Every Saturday morning, rain or shine, whether he wanted to or not, his dad mowed the family’s lawn. Then, without anyone asking, he walked next door and mowed the lawn of their neighbor, an elderly widow.

He never talked about it. He just did it.

That, Talarico said, is what a man does.

A man takes responsibility. A man upholds his commitments to his family and his neighbors. A man does what’s right even when no one is watching.

Then came the other half. “They don’t lie and cheat their way through life. They don’t sell their soul to the highest bidder. They don’t steal from other people in order to enrich themselves.”

Real men serve others, he said. Weak men serve themselves. And he closed the door on his way out: he doesn’t think Ken Paxton or Ted Cruz are in a position to tell anybody what a real man is.

The list reads differently considering who it was aimed at.

Cruz spent 2016 watching Donald Trump publicly mock his wife’s appearance, then endorsed him and became one of his most loyal soldiers.

When a deadly winter storm froze Texas in 2021, Cruz boarded a flight to Cancun.

Paxton was impeached on bribery and corruption charges by his own Republican colleagues in the Texas House, and his wife filed for divorce last year citing adultery.

Mark Talarico never talked about the widow’s lawn. He just mowed it. Some men do what’s right when no one is watching.

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

The Next Political Shift May Not Be Left or Right

June 12, 2026June 10, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

June 12, 2026

What if the biggest force in American politics isn’t ideology, but exhaustion?

Every election cycle seems to arrive with the promise that this one will finally settle things.

It never does.

The arguments continue. The accusations continue. The campaigns never seem to end.

And yet, beneath the daily headlines, another possibility may be emerging.

What if the next major political movement in America isn’t driven by the far left or the far right?

What if it is driven by people who are simply tired?

Tired of being angry.

Tired of being told to hate neighbors who vote differently.

Tired of waking up every morning to discover another crisis demanding immediate outrage.

For nearly a decade, American politics has been fueled by conflict. Political strategists understand something that television networks and social media platforms have learned as well: outrage captures attention.

Anger keeps viewers watching.

Fear keeps voters engaged.

Conflict generates clicks.

But there is evidence that many Americans may be reaching a saturation point.

Poll after poll has shown declining trust in institutions, political parties, media organizations, and government itself. Yet beneath that distrust may be something more important: a desire for normalcy.

History suggests that political pendulums rarely stop at the extremes.

Eventually voters begin looking for stability.

Not excitement.

Not revolution.

Not constant crisis.

Just stability.

The nation has seen similar periods before. Following years of upheaval, Americans have often sought leaders who promised calm rather than confrontation. Sometimes those leaders succeeded. Sometimes they did not. But the desire itself repeatedly emerged.

Could that happen again?

No one knows.

Political forecasting has become a risky business. Recent elections have repeatedly surprised experts from every perspective.

But one possibility seems worth considering.

The next political shift may not be a movement toward one party or another.

It may be a movement away from perpetual conflict.

Americans may begin rewarding candidates who spend less time attacking opponents and more time discussing solutions.

They may become less interested in political celebrities and more interested in competent managers.

They may become less concerned with winning arguments and more concerned with lowering costs, improving schools, strengthening infrastructure, and maintaining public safety.

If that happens, the political landscape could change rapidly.

Not because voters changed their beliefs.

But because they changed their priorities.

Perhaps the most important question facing the nation is not whether America will become more conservative or more progressive.

“Please just let me drive to work in peace”

It may be whether Americans decide they are simply exhausted by the constant fight.

And if enough people reach that point, the next great political movement could be something surprisingly rare in modern politics:

A movement toward peace, practicality, and common ground.

The future remains uncertain.

But if history teaches anything, it is that voters eventually tire of turmoil.

The question is whether that moment is approaching once again.

Do You Know Where He Was Last Week?

June 10, 2026June 9, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

June 9, 2026

Pre-Trip Medical Evaluation For Politicians Over 70

Many physicians recommend a comprehensive health assessment before an extended speaking tour, especially if it involves frequent travel, time zone changes, or multiple appearances.

This might include:

Cardiovascular evaluation
Medication review
Blood work
Sleep assessment
Mobility and fall-risk evaluation
Vaccinations if international travel is involved

Hydration and Nutritional Support

Some physicians may recommend:

Intravenous (IV) hydration before travel if a person is prone to dehydration
Nutritional supplementation if deficiencies are present
Vitamin B12 injections for individuals who are deficient

It’s important to note that “wellness IVs” marketed for energy have limited scientific evidence unless treating a specific deficiency or dehydration.

Voice and Speaking Preparation

For public speakers, clergy, politicians, and entertainers:

Evaluation by an ear, nose, and throat specialist
Voice therapy with a speech-language pathologist
Treatment of acid reflux, which often affects vocal quality
Management of allergies or post-nasal drip

Sleep and Fatigue Management

A physician might:

Screen for sleep apnea
Adjust medications that cause fatigue
Recommend strategies for jet lag and circadian adjustment

Physical Conditioning Programs

Many older speakers benefit from:

Physical therapy
Balance training
Walking and endurance programs
Pulmonary rehabilitation if lung issues exist

Cognitive and Mental Performance

Some individuals undergo:

Cognitive screening
Memory assessments
Stress management training
Performance coaching for public speaking

What Most Public Figures Actually Do

Many older politicians, authors, ministers, professors, and entertainers who travel extensively often receive:

Regular physician monitoring
Scheduled rest days
Physical therapy or exercise coaching
Nutritional guidance
Voice coaching
Strategic scheduling to avoid exhaustion

If You’re Thinking About Someone Around 80 Like A President…And Perhaps Drugs?

If you’re thinking about a public figure in their late 70s or 80s preparing for a speaking circuit, or appearing in public at social events, the most common medical preparation would usually be a thorough physical examination and clearance from their physician, combined with careful management of sleep, hydration, medications, and travel schedules rather than a single special procedure

There are medications that can improve alertness, stamina, concentration, and wakefulness, and some public figures, executives, entertainers, and speakers have used them under medical supervision. However, they are not magic solutions, and for older adults the risks can become significant.

Some examples include:

Modafinil (Provigil) and Armodafinil (Nuvigil) — prescription “wakefulness-promoting” medications originally developed for narcolepsy and other sleep disorders. They can help reduce fatigue and improve alertness.
Traditional stimulants such as amphetamine-based medications and methylphenidate can increase energy and focus but carry greater risks involving blood pressure, heart rate, dependence, and cardiovascular events.
Some physicians may prescribe medications to address underlying causes of fatigue, such as depression, sleep disorders, anemia, hormone deficiencies, or vitamin deficiencies rather than prescribing stimulants directly.

For someone in their late 70s or 80s preparing for a national speaking tour, physicians are often more interested in:

Sleep quality
Hydration
Nutrition
Cardiac health
Medication interactions
Managing jet lag and travel fatigue

Rather than simply giving a stimulant. A healthy 80-year-old can often maintain a surprisingly active schedule with careful medical management and scheduling. That is, if they lay off the Big Macs and KFC deep fried chicken legs.

Historically, there have also been legends and reports about politicians, presidents, candidates, entertainers, and television personalities using various stimulants or wakefulness-promoting medications to keep up with demanding schedules. Unless the person or their physician discloses it, however, there is usually no reliable public evidence of what medications an individual is taking. As in the case of Michael Jackson. Occassionally someone will try to set up someone with planted illegal drugs, especially if there is a grudge of some sort involved.

If you’re wondering how an 80-year-old politician or public figure could maintain a grueling travel and speaking schedule, the answer is usually a combination of:

Medications are used,
Strategic scheduling and rest are monitored through IV applications similar to Jacksons.
Nutrition and hydration is usually abandoned and the person will fall asleep in public.
Exercise and conditioning in some cases are attempted or it has ended a long time ago.
Sometimes medications that improve wakefulness or treat underlying fatigue-causing conditions are used or has been attempted but no longer work.

A healthy 80-year-old can often perform far beyond what many people expect, particularly if they have access to excellent medical care and a carefully managed schedule. If that is not the case. Then there is little hope the individual will be successful in managing their own home little alone the affairs of others.

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

When Presidents Disappear From View – This Isn’t The Truman Years Anymore

June 9, 2026June 5, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

June 9, 2026

Presidential Visibility in the Age of Social Media

For most of American history, citizens rarely knew where their president was every hour of every day. News traveled at the speed of newspapers, radio broadcasts, and evening television reports. A president could spend days away from public view without generating much notice.

How long out of sight can a President go without their public raising concern? — Missing – “The President of The United States”

Today, that has changed.

In the age of social media, twenty-four-hour news cycles, and instant communication, even a few days without a public appearance can spark speculation. Questions emerge. Rumors spread. Conspiracy theories flourish.

That is exactly what happened recently when President Donald Trump was absent from public view for several days.

The speculation raises a larger question that extends beyond any one president: How much visibility do Americans expect from their leaders, and has that expectation changed with technology?

The discussion becomes even more relevant as America continues electing leaders well into their seventies and eighties. President Trump is approaching 80 years of age. Former President Joe Biden served into his eighties. Other national leaders around the world have governed well beyond what was once considered traditional retirement age.

Age alone does not determine a person’s ability to lead. History is filled with examples of individuals who remained productive, sharp, and influential well into their later years. At the same time, age naturally invites questions about health, stamina, and transparency—questions that would be asked of anyone occupying one of the most demanding jobs on Earth.

Perhaps the real story is not where a president was for a week.

Perhaps the story is how quickly Americans become concerned when they cannot see their president, hear from their president, or receive reassurance that the nation’s business is continuing as usual.

In a nation connected by smartphones, social media feeds, and constant news alerts, visibility has become a form of leadership all its own.

The question for the future may not be whether presidents can work behind closed doors.

It may be whether the American public is still willing to believe they are working when the cameras are turned off.

The Fabric of Freedom? L.A. County Engineer Sues Over Pride Flag

June 7, 2026June 4, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

June 6, 2026

Can walking past a rainbow flag once a day create a legally recognized hostile work environment? That is the question central to a high-profile federal lawsuit rocking Los Angeles County.

You see a Progress Flag, they see a Confederate flag. — Can a flag really cause that much stress? It’s wild to think that just looking at a symbol once a day can push someone to sue their employer.

Eric Batman, a senior civil engineer with 24 years of service at the Department of Public Works, has officially sued his employer. Represented by the Liberty Counsel—the conservative Christian legal group famous for representing Kentucky clerk Kim Davis—Batman argues that the county’s June Pride flag mandate violates his constitutional rights.

The Core of the Conflict

In 2023, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed a policy requiring the Progress Pride flag to fly outside many county buildings throughout the month of June.

For Batman, who works out of the department’s Alhambra headquarters, the flag is not a symbol of inclusion, but a confrontation. According to the lawsuit, Batman holds deeply rooted Christian beliefs regarding biblical marriage and human sexuality. He contends that forcing him to walk past the flag daily compels him to “celebrate, recognize, and solemnize” actions his faith deems sinful.

Denied Remote Work and the “Back Door” Suggestion

Hoping to avoid the display entirely, Batman requested to work from home for the month of June in both 2024 and 2025. He already splits his time as a partial remote worker, meaning the logistics for a temporary work-from-home stint were already established.

However, the county flatly denied his accommodation requests. According to the lawsuit, county supervisors stated that remote work conflicted with their commitment to a “welcoming environment for all”. Instead, management offered two alternatives:

Use the rear entrance: Enter and exit the Alhambra building through the back door to avoid looking at the front flagpole.
Seek mental health counseling: Utilize county-provided counseling if the flag caused him emotional or spiritual distress.

Batman rejected both offers, viewingly the suggestion of “counseling” for his religious convictions as an overtly hostile act by management.

The Legal Argument: A Clash of Rights

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eric Batman v. Los Angeles County et al.), the suit claims violations under:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Religious Discrimination)
The First Amendment (Free Exercise of Religion and Freedom from Compelled Speech)
The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection)
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

Batman’s lawyers highlight a crucial point of comparison: the county has previously allowed Muslim employees temporary remote work flexibility during Ramadan. By denying Batman a similar one-month accommodation, his attorneys argue the county is engaging in selective, unconstitutional bias.

Furthermore, the legal team points to the 2023 Supreme Court precedent Groff v. DeJoy, which dictates that employers must grant religious accommodations unless doing so causes “substantial increased costs” to business operations. Batman’s lawyers argue that since his work record is exemplary and he already works remotely part-time, a one-month extension carries zero burden for the county.

The Public Backlash: Where is the Line?

The lawsuit has split public opinion, triggering intense online debate:

Critics of the lawsuit point out that the flag is government speech on a public flagpole, not a personal mandate. They argue that simply seeing a flag on a walk into an office does not restrict an individual’s personal faith or constitute a hostile work environment.
Supporters of the engineer argue that true inclusivity must include people of faith. They argue that forcing an employee to sneak through a back door or suggest they need therapy for their religious beliefs crosses a clear line into institutional bullying.

This is notably the second lawsuit L.A. County faces regarding this specific flag policy, following a 2024 suit by an evangelical county lifeguard who objected to being forced to open or manage facilities flying the banner.

As the case makes its way through federal court, it serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing culture wars shifting from the political stage directly into corporate and government office spaces.

Flags at Capitol building — Progress Flag Flying High Above In Opposition Of Confederate Flag At Capitol Building

BUT WHY DO PEOPLE LOOK AT A PIECE OF MATERIAL IN SUCH A WAY

Some conservative and religious critics draw this comparison to explain the depth of their objection.

From their perspective, the comparison is about how a symbol can represent a hostile ideology rather than a message of inclusion. However, historians, legal scholars, and social analysts point out that the two flags represent fundamentally different historical and structural concepts.

The comparison can be broken down into two distinct viewpoints:

1. The Perspective of Religious and Conservative Critics

For individuals who share the engineer’s viewpoint, the comparison is based on the emotional and cultural impact of the symbol:

Symbol of Exclusion: Critics argue that the Progress Pride flag has moved beyond a symbol of civil rights and now represents a specific political ideology that excludes traditional religious beliefs.
Perceived Hostility: From this viewpoint, seeing the flag flying on government property feels like an official endorsement of values that contradict their faith, creating a sense of being unwelcome or marginalized in their own workplace.
Compelled Culture: They view the widespread adoption of the flag by corporations and government agencies as a form of cultural dominance, similar to how marginalized groups view the dominant display of controversial historical symbols.

2. The Historical and Sociological Context

Scholars, civil rights advocates, and supporters of the Pride flag argue that comparing the two symbols is a false equivalence due to their origins and purposes:

Feature	The Progress Pride Flag	The Confederate Flag
Core Purpose	Symbolizes inclusion, equal rights, and protection for a historically marginalized minority group.	Symbolizes the Confederacy, a historical rebellion fought to maintain the institution of chattel slavery.
Historical Context	Emerged from grassroots civil rights movements (beginning with the 1978 Gilbert Baker flag) to advocate against discrimination and violence.	Used by a wartime government explicitly dedicated to white supremacy and the subjugation of Black Americans.
Modern Usage	Flown by institutions to signal a welcoming, diverse environment and compliance with anti-discrimination laws.	Frequently used by hate groups, white supremacists, and anti-government movements as a symbol of intimidation.

Summary

While a conservative employee may experience a genuine sense of personal or religious discomfort seeing the Pride flag—viewing it as a symbol of an ideology hostile to their faith—the comparison to the Confederate flag breaks down under historical and legal analysis. One symbol was created to advocate for the inclusion of a minority group, while the other was created to defend the systemic oppression of one.

When it comes down to it, the people against the “Progressive Flag” or “Gay Flag” say they suffer the same emotional suffering as those who suffer from emotional scars from the “Confederate Flag.”

The bottom line? At the heart of the debate is a simple question: Can a symbol cause emotional harm? Those who oppose the Progress Pride flag argue that it does. Those who oppose the Confederate flag have made a similar claim for years. The disagreement is not over whether symbols carry meaning, but over which meanings society chooses to embrace and which it chooses to reject.

When Does Opinion Become a Weapon Against a Business

June 6, 2026June 4, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

June 6, 2026

The Cost of a Rumor

Targeted out of no where, for no reason! — Harley Davidson has been targeted for no apparent reason! A company that has been in good standing for over 120 years!

There was a time when if someone wanted to damage a business, they had to stand on a street corner and tell people not to shop there.

Today, all it takes is a social media account.

A single post can reach hundreds of thousands of people. A video can be shared across the country in hours. An accusation can become accepted as fact before anyone pauses to ask whether it is true.

That raises an important question:

When does criticism become defamation?

The question came to mind after reading reports about a recent social media campaign targeting Harley-Davidson.

For decades, Harley-Davidson has represented something uniquely American. Its motorcycles have become symbols of freedom, independence, veterans, road trips, and a culture that has existed for generations.

Yet over the past several weeks, social media influencers and political personalities began attacking the company, describing it as “woke,” “anti-American,” and even “gay.” At the same time, many of the same accounts were encouraging consumers to purchase motorcycles from a competing manufacturer, Indian Motorcycle. According to reporting by The Bulwark, numerous influencers appeared to be using remarkably similar talking points while simultaneously promoting Harley’s competitor. The article raised questions about whether the campaign was organic or coordinated. No evidence has publicly emerged proving who, if anyone, organized the effort.

What makes the situation unusual is that Harley-Davidson had already announced in 2024 that it had ended its DEI department and scaled back several diversity-related initiatives after previous criticism from activists. The company stated it no longer maintained a DEI function and would focus on growing motorcycling and serving its riding community.

Yet the attacks continued.

Whether readers agree or disagree with Harley-Davidson’s past decisions is not really the point.

The larger issue is what happens when public opinion is manufactured.

If a business actually engages in conduct that customers dislike, criticism is fair. Consumers have every right to spend their money where they choose.

But what if the accusations are exaggerated?

What if they are misleading?

What if they are completely false?

And what if someone is profiting from spreading those claims?

Those questions move beyond politics and into the realm of ethics.

Most Americans would likely agree that consumers deserve truthful information before making purchasing decisions. We expect truth in advertising. We expect products to perform as advertised. We expect companies not to deceive customers.

Should the same standard apply to people attempting to damage a company’s reputation?

American law has long protected free speech. It should.

But free speech and knowingly false statements have never been exactly the same thing. Businesses, like individuals, can suffer tremendous financial harm when false information spreads unchecked.

Imagine spending a lifetime building a company, employing thousands of workers, paying suppliers, supporting local communities, and creating a respected brand. Then one morning you discover strangers on the internet have decided to label your business with accusations that may bear little resemblance to reality.

The damage can be immediate.

Customers leave.

Sales decline.

Employees worry.

Investors react.

All because of something that may never have been true in the first place.

Social media has given every citizen a voice. That is one of the great achievements of the digital age.

But it has also created a world where rumors can travel farther than facts.

Perhaps the question facing America is not whether people should be allowed to criticize businesses.

Of course they should.

The real question is whether people who knowingly spread false information intended to harm a company should bear responsibility when real damage results.

That debate is likely to grow louder in the years ahead.

Because in today’s world, a rumor is no longer just a rumor.

It can become a weapon.

Closing Question

If someone intentionally spreads false information about a business for political, personal, or financial gain, should they be held responsible for the economic damage they cause?

THE BOTTOM LINE

If you hear information coming from someone. Especially a politician. Stop. Take it with a grain of salt. And then go do your own research. See if it is true. Don’t believe them when they tell you that everything you learn through research is false.

Thank you for visiting benandsteve.com TruthEndures

The Boys Who Believed They Were Saving the Future

June 1, 2026May 31, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

June 1, 2026

A fading photograph of young World War II servicemen reminds us of a generation that believed sacrifice, truth, and unity could build a better America.

There is something haunting about old World War II photographs.
Not because of the uniforms.
Not because of the war itself. No photo description available.

But because of the faces.

These were not old men yet. They were boys. Farm boys. Small-town boys. Sons of mechanics, barbers, school teachers, ranchers, and church-going mothers who watched them board trains with tears hidden behind forced smiles. They left behind dirt roads, harvest fields, Saturday night dances, and families who prayed every evening they might return home alive.

The young men in this photograph likely believed what millions of others believed at the time — that their sacrifices would permanently change the world for the better.

And for a long while, it seemed they had.

After the war came neighborhoods.
Factories.
Opportunity.
Families.
A belief in country.
A belief in community.
A belief that democracy and decency had survived one of mankind’s darkest moments.

UNITY!

Their generation became known as The Greatest Generation not because they claimed the title for themselves, but because those who followed saw what they endured and understood the price they paid.

They fought in freezing forests and burning deserts.
They crossed oceans knowing many beside them would never return.
Some came home carrying medals.
Others came home carrying nightmares they never spoke about.

Yet they built lives anyway.

They raised children to believe sacrifice mattered.
That honor mattered.
That truth mattered.
That America, despite its flaws, was worth protecting.

And now many of the things they stood for seem to be fading under the weight of division, political hatred, greed, and a society that often forgets what previous generations endured to preserve freedom in the first place.

The painful irony is this:

Many veterans spent the rest of their lives believing the nation had moved forward because of what they had done. Their families believed it too. Schools taught it. Communities honored it. Flags waved proudly for them every Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

But somewhere along the way, respect began giving way to mockery.
Service became politicized.
History became disposable.
Truth became negotiable.

The men in photographs like this never imagined a time when Americans would fight each other more fiercely than they once fought enemies overseas.

And yet here we are.

Hate, Anger and Discontent, the new American way! — Never Compromise! The New American Way…

Still, perhaps their greatest lesson was never perfection.
Perhaps it was endurance.

Because those young men were not flawless heroes from a Hollywood script. They were ordinary people who answered extraordinary times with courage. They showed future generations that democracy survives only when people are willing to sacrifice something for others besides themselves.

Maybe that is the part we are in danger of losing.

Not the uniforms.

Not the medals.
But the willingness to place country, truth, and community ahead of ego.

These young faces remind us that history was once carried on the shoulders of boys who became men far too quickly. And whether we realize it or not, the world we inherited was purchased partly through their fear, their courage, and in many cases, their blood.

The question now is whether future generations will preserve what they believed they saved.

Look at today’s world and the flood of voices insisting that fairness is weakness. That the ideals generations of Americans once believed in were somehow a lie. We are told freedom was never real, truth no longer matters, institutions cannot be trusted, and even the information we rely upon each day is designed to deceive us. Fear, division, and suspicion are being sold as wisdom. History has shown us before where that road can lead. It is the kind of confusion and distrust that tyrants have always depended upon to weaken societies from within. And perhaps the greatest danger of all is that those carrying such messages rarely arrive wearing uniforms or waving flags of conquest. More often, they arrive disguised as certainty, outrage, and easy answers for the angry, the fearful, and the uninformed

When Truth Becomes Optional in Politics

May 31, 2026May 30, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

May 31, 2026

From Arizona campaigns to national politics, voters are increasingly left trying to separate performance, outrage, and party loyalty from simple honesty.

I am having a difficult time deciding what to write about today, which honestly should not be the case. The political world alone provides enough material every hour to fill a newspaper from front page to back.

Voters lose faith in candidates unless they can believe the lies. — Truth Vs. Deception Spin opposed to Facts!

What continues to stand out to me is not simply disagreement between political parties, but the growing difficulty many candidates seem to have with remaining grounded in facts. In Arizona alone, voters have watched candidates within the same party question each other’s qualifications, attack one another’s credibility, and debate who is less suited for the office they seek.

At times it feels less like public service and more like political performance.

The larger problem may not even belong to one individual candidate. Modern campaigning has slowly evolved into a contest of slogans, outrage, and carefully packaged talking points designed more to energize loyal supporters than to inform undecided voters. Over time, repetition becomes accepted as truth simply because people hear it often enough.

That is not unique to Arizona. It has become part of the national political culture.

Years ago, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo delivered a speech to the Democratic National Convention emphasizing compassion, inclusion, and honesty in government. Whether people agreed with his politics or not, the message was centered around the belief that government should speak truthfully to the public and acknowledge the realities everyday Americans face.

Today, many voters from all sides often find themselves exhausted trying to separate fact from performance. Campaigns increasingly rely on emotional reaction, social media sound bites, and outrage-driven messaging because those methods attract attention faster than thoughtful discussion ever will.

When You Knew The Truth And It Was Obvious

The real danger in all of this is not simply that politicians stretch the truth. Politics has always involved persuasion. The danger comes when voters begin expecting exaggeration and no longer believe honesty is even possible from public officials. Once that happens, trust in the entire system begins to erode.

And perhaps that is the real story worth writing about today.

The Most Powerful Line Ever Spoken

May 30, 2026May 29, 2026Benjamin1 Comment

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

May 30, 2026

words that become legend. — They said it and it meant it. That is why it mattered!

Words matter.

Sometimes they outlive armies.
Sometimes they survive empires.
Sometimes a single sentence can echo across centuries long after the person who spoke it has turned to dust.

I got to thinking recently about what may be the coolest line ever spoken in history.

Not necessarily the smartest.
Not the most educated.
Not even the most important.

Just the line that hits you square in the chest when you hear it.

History is full of them.

“I have a dream.”

“Give me liberty, or give me death.”

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Each sentence tied forever to a moment that changed the world.

But if there is one line that may define raw confidence itself, it may belong to Julius Caesar:

“I came, I saw, I conquered.”

Think about that for a minute.

No long explanation.
No press conference.
No carefully prepared speech from a teleprompter.

Just three short statements delivered by a man who understood the power of simplicity.

And here we are more than 2,000 years later still repeating it.

That is power.

Of course, history also gave us lines born from courage and desperation.

Patrick Henry declaring:

“Give me liberty, or give me death!”

Imagine hearing that in person during the uncertainty of revolution.

Or Nathan Hale, standing before execution, saying:

“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

Those weren’t movie scripts.
Those were human beings staring directly into fear.

Then there are lines born from pure grit.

General George Patton once said:

“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

Now whether you agree with the language or not, that line carried the hard truth and brutality of war in a way no polished statement ever could.

And perhaps that is why some lines survive history.

They sound real.

Pearl Harbor leads to WWII — FDR Address To The Nation Following Pearl Harbor leading to WWII

Not manufactured.
Not tested by focus groups.
Not rewritten by committees.

Real words from real people living real moments.

I suppose every generation has its own unforgettable lines.

Some come from presidents.
Some from soldiers.
Some from activists.
Some from old actors, comedians, athletes, or ordinary people who happened to say something extraordinary at exactly the right moment.

Sometimes the greatest line in history isn’t famous at all.

Sometimes it is something your grandfather said sitting on a porch.

Something your mother whispered when life was difficult.

Something a police officer muttered over cold coffee at three in the morning.

Something a tired parent told their child before bedtime.

Those are the lines that stay with us too.

Words become memories.
Memories become history.

And history, in many ways, is simply the collection of sentences mankind refused to forget.

You may have a line considered quiet popular you wish to share. Please do!

“We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give”

The final line often attributed to Winston Churchill.

— Benjamin Groff

The Forgotten Mothers – Is Yours One Of Them?

May 29, 2026May 28, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

May 28, 2026

This piece is dedicated to my mother, Marjorie Bernice (McWhirter) Groff — one of countless mothers whose sacrifices slowly faded into the background of family history. Though often overlooked by many whose lives she helped shape, she remained deeply loved and remembered by her daughter Twila and by me, Benjamin Groff. Her kindness, endurance, creativity, and quiet strength remain part of the foundation upon which our lives were built. My sister sent me a writing that deeply reflects these sentiments.

There are mothers whose names will never appear in history books.

Love Lost To Time — Mothers Whose Dedication And Love Is Forgotten

No statues will be built in their honor.
No documentaries will celebrate their sacrifices.
No crowds will gather to remember what they carried through the long years of raising families, stretching paychecks, and trying to hold homes together while the world outside kept changing.

Yet millions of us exist because of them.

They were the women who quietly gave up pieces of themselves so their children could have a little more.
A little more food.
A little more confidence.
A little more hope.
A little more time to dream.

Many worked jobs nobody respected.
Others stayed home and performed labor that was never considered “real work” by the standards of modern society, despite the fact that their days began before sunrise and often ended long after everyone else had gone to sleep.

They cooked meals while bills piled up on kitchen counters.
They sewed buttons back onto school shirts.
They patched blue jeans.
They planted flowers beside homes that weren’t fancy but somehow always felt welcoming.
They stretched hamburger meat into meals for six people and somehow made it feel normal.
They worried silently so their children would not have to.

And many of them did all of it without ever hearing the words:
“Thank you.”

What is strange about life is that children rarely understand these things while growing up.

As kids, we remember bicycles, baseball gloves, birthday cakes, and Christmas mornings.
We remember rules we disliked.
Groundings.
Arguments.
Embarrassing moments.

But later, often decades later, the mind begins returning to smaller things.

A mother carrying groceries in from the car.
Her placing a purse on the trunk before tossing a few basketballs with her child in the driveway.
The smell of face cream before church.

mother playing ball after work. — Mother Playing Ball.

The sound of a washing machine late at night. A woman standing at the kitchen sink looking exhausted while still asking everybody else if they were hungry.

The sound of the vacuum sweeper running on a Saturday morning when all you wanted to do was sleep late. Only later do you realize it was the only time she had to get it done.

Small moments.
Ordinary moments.

The kind that seemed invisible at the time.

Many of those women came from generations that were taught not to complain.
They endured hardships quietly.
Some lived through wars, recessions, alcoholism, infidelity, illness, and disappointments they never fully spoke about.
Many buried dreams they once had because survival became more important than ambition.

And then age arrived.

One by one, society moved on from them.

The world became faster.
Technology replaced conversations.
Families spread apart.
Visits became shorter.
Phone calls became less frequent.

And somewhere along the way, many mothers who once held entire families together slowly became background figures in the very lives they helped create.

Some now sit in nursing homes.
Some live alone in quiet houses.
Some stare through windows waiting for visitors who seldom come.
Some have already passed away, leaving behind closets full of recipes, photographs, sewing kits, and handwritten notes nobody quite knows what to do with.

Yet after they are gone, strange things begin happening.

A certain perfume suddenly breaks a grown man’s heart in the middle of a grocery store.
A recipe becomes impossible to duplicate because “it never tastes like hers.”
A flower garden reminds someone of childhood.
A song from the radio decades ago causes tears nobody expected.

And people slowly begin realizing something they missed while rushing through life:

Those women were never ordinary.

They were the glue.
The emotional architecture of entire families.
The steady hand behind countless lives that succeeded because someone quietly kept the world from falling apart at home.

Not perfect.
No parent ever is.

But far more important than many of us understood at the time.

Maybe the forgotten mothers are not truly forgotten after all.

Maybe they continue living in the habits they taught us.
The kindness we show others.
The recipes we still cook.
The gardens we plant.
The way we comfort our children.
The way we try to survive difficult times with dignity because we once watched them do the same.

And maybe tonight, somewhere, someone reading these words will stop for a moment and remember a woman who spent most of her life making sure others felt loved… even while much of the world overlooked her.

If so, perhaps that memory itself is a form of gratitude long overdue.

— Truth Endures
benandsteve.com

Benjamin, Margie and Twila. — “Mama” (Marjorie) with Benjamin and Twila

Marjorie Groff 1930-2026

Documented errors & misleading claims in Republican advertising show why political loyalty should never replace verification. Yet, do Democratic advertisings fare any better?

The Fact Check Cannot Stop at Democratic Party

Sources

“Did the last promises work?”

Then four years pass.

History may not predict the future, but it usually leaves enough footprints to tell us where we’ve already walked.Years ago, neighbors could spend an afternoon arguing over whosesourdough recipe made the better loaf, and everyone still shared a slice afterward.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

Why Pride Month, the rainbow flag, and the simple act of being seen still matter.

There are moments when people ask a sincere question:

Why is there a Pride Month? Why the rainbow flag? Why all of the celebration?

“I literally thought I was going to die.”

We are here. We are your neighbors. We are your family. And we hope one day these reminders are no longer necessary.

Benjamin Groff IIGroff Media © Truth Endures

When Faith and Politics Collide

Meanwhile –

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

What if the biggest force in American politics isn’t ideology, but exhaustion?

Pre-Trip Medical Evaluation For Politicians Over 70

Hydration and Nutritional Support

Voice and Speaking Preparation

Sleep and Fatigue Management

Physical Conditioning Programs

Cognitive and Mental Performance

What Most Public Figures Actually Do

If You’re Thinking About Someone Around 80 Like A President…And Perhaps Drugs?

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

Presidential Visibility in the Age of Social Media

Can walking past a rainbow flag once a day create a legally recognized hostile work environment? That is the question central to a high-profile federal lawsuit rocking Los Angeles County.

The Core of the Conflict

Denied Remote Work and the “Back Door” Suggestion

The Legal Argument: A Clash of Rights

The Public Backlash: Where is the Line?

BUT WHY DO PEOPLE LOOK AT A PIECE OF MATERIAL IN SUCH A WAY

Some conservative and religious critics draw this comparison to explain the depth of their objection.

Summary

The Cost of a Rumor

When does criticism become defamation?

The question came to mind after reading reports about a recent social media campaign targeting Harley-Davidson.

The damage can be immediate.

Of course they should.

Closing Question

THE BOTTOM LINE

Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

A fading photograph of young World War II servicemen reminds us of a generation that believed sacrifice, truth, and unity could build a better America.

The young men in this photograph likely believed what millions of others believed at the time — that their sacrifices would permanently change the world for the better.

UNITY!

And now many of the things they stood for seem to be fading under the weight of division, political hatred, greed, and a society that often forgets what previous generations endured to preserve freedom in the first place.

The men in photographs like this never imagined a time when Americans would fight each other more fiercely than they once fought enemies overseas.

Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

From Arizona campaigns to national politics, voters are increasingly left trying to separate performance, outrage, and party loyalty from simple honesty.

When You Knew The Truth And It Was Obvious

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

There are mothers whose names will never appear in history books.

Benjamin Groff II
Groff Media © Truth Endures