It was the fall of 2024, and the country had never seemed more divided. Political upheaval had peaked, with protests echoing through city streets, harsh words hurled in homes, and debates erupting at family dinner tables. The election season had become more than just a contest of policies; it had morphed into a battle over the nation’s soul, pitting neighbor against neighbor.
At the heart of this turmoil was a young senator named Jacob Randall. A man of few words but deep conviction, he had saw firsthand the devastating effects of division. Randall had grown up in a small town where his mother and father, though from opposite sides of the political spectrum, had found common ground in their love for family, faith, and community. That shared foundation had always given him hope that unity was possible.
However, as he stood before Congress, he wondered if that hope had been misplaced. The chamber was restless, with representatives glaring at one another across the aisle, the tension palpable. Randall chose to speak at what many called a last-ditch effort—a desperate attempt to heal the nation before it tore apart.
Taking a deep breath, he began.
“Fellow citizens, colleagues, I stand before you not as a Democrat or a Republican but as an American. Our great nation is facing a challenge unlike any other. We have become so entrenched in our political camps that we no longer see each other as fellow countrymen. We see enemies where once we saw neighbors. And that division is killing the very fabric of our society.
“My parents did not always agree on politics. Mother was a staunch conservative, Father a proud progressive. But they understood something we have forgotten: that compromise is not a weakness but the cornerstone of democracy. They believed that every person, no matter how much they disagreed, had something valuable to contribute to the conversation.”
Randall’s words caught the attention of some. A few heads began to nod slowly. He pressed on, feeling the weight of the moment.
“Our founders, too, were divided. They had different visions for this country and ideas about what liberty and justice should look. Nevertheless, they knew that to create something lasting, they had to pull together to find common ground. And they did. That is the spirit that created America. Moreover, that is the spirit we need to rediscover today.”
As Randall continued, he saw a shift in the faces before him. Some were hard, unmoving, but others softened, listening with new ears. He was not offering easy solutions but calling for something more complicated: humility.
“When we look across the aisle, we must not see enemies but partners in this great American experiment. We have different ideas about achieving a better future, but we all want a better one. And if we cannot even agree on that, we have already lost.”
He paused, letting the gravity of his words settle in the room.
“In every crisis, there is opportunity, an opportunity to rise above the noise, the hatred, and the division. It is an opportunity to remember that we are bound together not just by the laws of this land but by the ideals it represents. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—for everyone. Not just for those who agree with us.”
Randall stepped away from the podium and glanced up at the gallery above. It was filled with citizens from across the country, watching with anxious eyes, waiting for anyone to bring clarity to the chaos. He saw young activists clutching signs, older veterans with tears in their eyes, and families holding hands.
“I am not asking you to abandon your beliefs. Listen to those who see the world differently. Not to argue but to understand a call for uniformity, but for unity because we cannot get found without uniting.”
The silence in the chamber was deafening. No one was shouting for the first time in what seemed like years. No one was trying to outdo the other with statistics or soundbites. They were listening.
Randall’s speech ended with a simple message: “America is not a perfect nation, but it is a nation built on the belief that we can pursue perfection together. Let us, as a people, return to that pursuit—not as adversaries, but as Americans.”
As he stepped away from the podium, the room erupted—not in protest, but in applause. Representatives stood on both sides of the aisle, clapping not just for Randall’s words but for what those words represented: a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, the country could pull itself back from the brink.
It would take work. It would not happen overnight. But in that moment, something had shifted. For the first time in a long time, there was a shared sense of purpose— a belief that even in the darkest of times, unity was possible—and that together, the nation could find its way back to the light.
On September 16, CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten wrote that while it’s “[p]retty clear that [Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala] Harris is ahead nationally right now… [h]er advantage in the battlegrounds is basically nil. Average it all, Harris’[s] chance of winning the popular vote is 70%. Her chance of winning the electoral college is 50%.” Two days later, on September 18, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) skipped votes in the Senate to travel to Nebraska, where he tried to convince state legislators to switch the state’s system of allotting electoral votes by district to a winner-take-all system. That effort so far appears unsuccessful.
In a country of 50 states and Washington, D.C.—a country of more than 330 million people—presidential elections are decided in just a handful of states, and it is possible for someone who loses the popular vote to become president. We got to this place thanks to the Electoral College, and to two major changes made to it since the ratification of the Constitution.
The men who debated how to elect a president in 1787 worried terribly about making sure there were hedges around the strong executive they were creating so that he could not become a king.
Some of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted Congress to choose the president, but this horrified others who believed that a leader and Congress would collude to take over the government permanently. Others liked the idea of direct election of the president, but this worried delegates from smaller states, who thought that big states would simply be able to name their own favorite sons. It also worried those who pointed out that most voters would have no idea which were the leading men in other states, leaving a national institution, like the organization of Revolutionary War officers called the Society of the Cincinnati, the power to get its members to support their own leader, thus finding a different way to create a dictator.
Ultimately, the framers came up with the election of a president by a group of men well known in their states but not currently office-holders, who would meet somewhere other than the seat of government and would disband as soon as the election was over. Each elector in this so-called Electoral College would cast two votes for president. The man with the most votes would be president, and the man with the second number of votes would be vice president (a system that the Twelfth Amendment ended in 1804). The number of electors would be equal to the number of senators and representatives allotted to each state in Congress. If no candidate earned a majority, the House of Representatives would choose the president, with each state delegation casting a single vote.
In the first two presidential elections—in 1788–1789 and 1792—none of this mattered very much, since the electors cast their ballots unanimously for George Washington. But when Washington stepped down, leaders of the newly formed political parties contended for the presidency. In the election of 1796, Federalist John Adams won, but Thomas Jefferson, who led the Democratic-Republicans (which were not the same as today’s Democrats or Republicans) was keenly aware that had Virginia given him all its electoral votes, rather than splitting them between him and Adams, he would have been president.
On January 12, 1800, Jefferson wrote to the governor of Virginia, James Monroe, urging him to back a winner-take-all system that awarded all Virginia’s electoral votes to the person who won the majority of the vote in the state. He admitted that dividing electoral votes by district “would be more likely to be an exact representation of [voters’] diversified sentiments” but, defending his belief that he was the true popular choice in the country in 1796, said voting by districts “would give a result very different from what would be the sentiment of the whole people of the US. were they assembled together.”
Virginia made the switch. Alarmed, the Federalists in Massachusetts followed suit to make sure Adams got all their votes, and by 1836, every state but South Carolina, where the legislature continued to choose electors until 1860, had switched to winner-take-all.
This change horrified the so-called Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who worried that the new system would divide the nation geographically and encourage sectional tensions. He wrote in 1823 that voting by district, rather than winner-take-all, “was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted.” He proposed a constitutional amendment to end winner-take-all.
But almost immediately, the Electoral College caused a different crisis. In 1824, electors split their votes among four candidates—Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford—and none won a majority in the Electoral College. Although Jackson won the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, when the election went to the House, the state delegations chose Adams, the son of former president John Adams.
Furious Jackson supporters thought a developing elite had stolen the election, and after they elected Jackson outright in 1828, the new president on December 8, 1829, implored Congress to amend the Constitution to elect presidents by popular vote. “To the people belongs the right of electing their Chief Magistrate,” he wrote; “it was never designed that their choice should in any case be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges or…the House of Representatives.”
Jackson warned that an election in the House could be corrupted by money or power or ignorance. He also warned that “under the present mode of election a minority may…elect a President,” and such a president could not claim legitimacy. He urged Congress “to amend our system that the office of Chief Magistrate may not be conferred upon any citizen but in pursuance of a fair expression of the will of the majority.”
But by the 1830s, the population of the North was exploding while the South’s was falling behind. The Constitution counted enslaved Americans as three fifths of a person for the purposes of representation, and direct election of the president would erase that advantage slave states had in the Electoral College. Their leaders were not about to throw that advantage away.
In 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery (except as punishment for a crime) and scratched out the three-fifths clause, meaning that after the 1870 census the southern states would have more power in the Electoral College than they did before the war. In 1876, Republicans lost the popular vote by about 250,000 votes out of 8.3 million cast, but kept control of the White House through the Electoral College. As Jackson had warned, furious Democrats threatened rebellion. They never considered Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, whom they called “Rutherfraud,” a legitimate president.
In 1888 it happened again. Incumbent Democratic president Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes out of 11 million cast, but Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison took the White House thanks to the 36 electoral votes from New York, a state Harrison won by fewer than 15,000 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast. Once in office, he and his team set out to skew the Electoral College permanently in their favor. Over twelve months in 1889–1890, they added six new, sparsely populated states to the Union, splitting the territory of Dakota in two and adding North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming while cutting out New Mexico and Arizona, whose inhabitants they expected would vote for Democrats.
The twentieth century brought another wrench to the Electoral College. The growth of cities, made possible thanks to modern industry—including the steel that supported skyscrapers—and transportation and sanitation, created increasing population differences among the different states.
The Constitution’s framers worried that individual states might try to grab too much power in the House by creating dozens and dozens of congressional districts, so they specified that a district could not be smaller than 30,000 people. But they put no upper limit on district sizes. After the 1920 census revealed that urban Americans outnumbered rural Americans, the House in 1929 capped its numbers at 435 to keep power away from those urban dwellers, including immigrants, that lawmakers considered dangerous, thus skewing the Electoral College in favor of rural America. Today the average congressional district includes 761,169 individuals—more than the entire population of Wyoming, Vermont, or Alaska—which weakens the power of larger states.
In the twenty-first century the earlier problems with the Electoral College have grown until they threaten to establish permanent minority rule. A Republican president hasn’t won the popular vote since voters reelected George W. Bush in 2004, when his popularity was high in the midst of a war. The last Republican who won the popular vote in a normal election cycle was Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988, 36 years and nine cycles ago. And yet, Republicans who lost the popular vote won in the Electoral College in 2000—George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, who won the popular vote by about a half a million votes—and in 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes but lost in the Electoral College to Donald Trump.
In our history, four presidents—all Republicans—have lost the popular vote and won the White House through the Electoral College. Trump’s 2024 campaign strategy appears to be to do it again (or to create such chaos that the election goes to the House of Representatives, where there will likely be more Republican-dominated delegations than Democratic ones).
In the 2024 election, Trump has shown little interest in courting voters. Instead, the campaign has thrown its efforts into legal challenges to voting and, apparently, into eking out a win in the Electoral College. The number of electoral votes equals the number of senators and representatives to which each state is entitled (100 + 435) plus three electoral votes for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538. A winning candidate must get a majority of those votes: 270.
Winner-take-all means that presidential elections are won in so-called swing or battleground states. Those are states with election margins of less than 3 points, so close they could be won by either party. The patterns of 2020 suggest that the states most likely to be in contention in 2024 are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, although the Harris-Walz campaign has opened up the map, suggesting its internal numbers show that states like Florida might also be in contention. Candidates and their political action committees focus on those few swing states—touring, giving speeches and rallies, and pouring money into advertising and ground operations.
But in 2024 there is a new wrinkle. The Constitution’s framers agreed on a census every ten years so that representation in Congress could be reapportioned according to demographic changes. As usual, the 2020 census shifted representation, and so the pathway to 270 electoral votes shifted slightly. Those shifts mean that it is possible the election will come down to one electoral vote. Awarding Trump the one electoral vote Nebraska is expected to deliver to Harris could be enough to keep her from becoming president.
Rather than trying to win a majority of voters, just 49 days before the presidential election, Trump supporters—including Senator Graham—are making a desperate effort to use the Electoral College to keep Harris from reaching the requisite 270 electoral votes to win. It is unusual for a senator from one state to interfere in the election processes in another state, but Graham similarly pressured officials in Georgia to swing the vote there toward Trump in 2020.
Harrison J. Goldin, Longtime New York City Comptroller, Dies at 90
Harrison J. Goldin, Longtime New York City Comptroller, Dies at 90
Harrison J. Goldin, who served as New York City’s comptroller for 16 years and was pivotal in steering the city through its near-bankruptcy in the 1970s, his death was reported on September 16th, 2024. He was 90.
A Harvard Law School graduate, Goldin was a driving force in New York politics from the late 1960s through the 1980s. Goldin, who won the election to become New York City’s comptroller in 1973, and his tenure coincided with one of the city’s most challenging financial crises. Goldin, then-Mayor Abraham Beame, and others worked tirelessly to restructure the city’s finances, helping to avert fiscal collapse. He was instrumental in negotiating critical deals with creditors and introducing reforms that put the city on a path toward financial recovery.
Goldin’s unwavering commitment to public finance and his no-nonsense approach earned him a reputation as a watchdog for the public purse. He initiated audits of city agencies and pushed for greater transparency and efficiency in government spending, leaving an indelible mark on the comptroller’s office. Even amid New York’s darkest financial days, Goldin remained steady, advocating for long-term solutions over short-term fixes, inspiring all with his steadfast commitment.
Harrison Golden
Before his time as comptroller, Goldin was a New York State Senator, championing civil rights, education reform, and fair housing policies. His political career reflected his deep commitment to social justice, a value he carried throughout his public service and one that we can all appreciate.
Following his departure from public office in 1989, Goldin transitioned to private law practice, consulting on financial matters and representing high-profile clients. He remained a respected voice in financial and legal circles despite stepping back from the political spotlight.
Goldin leaves behind many family and friends who remember him as a dedicated public servant, a passionate advocate for New Yorkers, and a loving father and grandfather.
His contributions to the city’s financial recovery will long stand, as New York owes much of its financial resilience to the groundwork he helped lay during its most difficult times. We are grateful for his service and dedication.
It’s a stark reality that the respect owed to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation gets often overlooked during political and commercial events. A red, white, and blue flower bouquet, more fitting for a picnic table than a sacred resting place, laid at the headstone of a fallen hero is a painful reminder of this disrespect.
It’s crucial to understand that there’s a distinct time and place for honoring our heroes and a separate space for casual group photos. These two should never mix. It’s our responsibility, especially for those in influential positions like Donald Trump, to uphold this distinction.
The GOP, particularly their latest pick as Trump’s potential successor, keeps asking why Kamala Harris hasn’t accomplished everything she claims she’ll do if elected.
As Vice President, Harris’s role isn’t to set policy but to support the President’s mission. Over the past four years, that mission has centered on recovering from Trump’s administration’s chaos. Trump’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic blindsided the nation, but despite these challenges, the Biden-Harris administration has worked tirelessly to put Americans back to work and rebuild neglected institutions.
It’s important to understand that any proposed initiatives by the President or Vice President require funding and legislation, which starts in the GOP-controlled House. Bipartisan cooperation is crucial, but the current House struggles to agree on leadership, let alone budgeting and legislation. The GOP’s track record in these areas is questionable at best. Blaming someone and then withholding their ability is classic GOP.
It is why many of Harris’s proposed measures are likely to gain traction during the first two years of her potential administration when a Democratic majority in both the Senate and House is more likely.
If critics want to question what Harris should have already accomplished, they should first focus on sponsoring and passing the necessary legislation. Only then can Harris take the steps needed to fulfill her promises.
In a time of intense political enthusiasm, the nation’s largest city braced for the Democratic National Convention. The convention was monumental, drawing over 200,000 people, including fervent supporters, passionate protestors, and those harboring darker intentions. The city’s population swelled, and the number of people and calls for service pushed authorities’ abilities, as law enforcement officers from seven neighboring states were called to ensure the safety of all in attendance.
The Convention Management needed two massive arenas to accommodate the influx of attendees, all eager to witness the nomination of their party’s candidate. Security was tight, with officers meticulously screening everyone entering the venues. Despite the thorough checks, the atmosphere was tense; no one knew what might happen as the evening unfolded.
As the convention began, volunteers handed out bracelets and necklaces designed to light up in vibrant shades of blue and pink. These accessories, when activated, blinked with a strobe-like effect, adding to the electric atmosphere. However, as the lights flashed rapidly, the joy turned into panic. For some, the blinking lights triggered seizures, turning the arena into a scene of chaos as over five hundred attendees began convulsing.
The sudden medical emergency overwhelmed the official responders. But amid the turmoil, a few quick-thinking attendees with first responder training stepped in, helping to manage the situation. They guided others in assisting the stricken, and together, they stabilized the crisis without needing additional outside help.
Realizing the cause of the seizures, the speaker at the podium urged the crowd to switch their bracelets and necklaces to a steady glow or to turn them off altogether. As the crowd complied, the flashing lights faded, and calm returned to the arena.
But a new and more sinister threat emerged just as the situation seemed to be under control. An embittered and desperate opposing candidate had managed to slip into the venue through a back door. Claiming he had a scheduled meeting with his Democratic opponent, he bypassed security and found his way to a room intended for the candidate.
Unbeknownst to him, the candidate wasn’t there that evening. Instead, a former First Lady entered the room, unaware of the intruder’s presence. As she closed the door behind her, the man, believing he was facing his political rival, prepared to attack. But before he could strike, the former First Lady, trained in Krav Maga, swiftly neutralized him. In a matter of seconds, the would-be attacker was subdued, left crying, and defeated on the floor.
He didn’t know the incident was captured on a security camera, complete with audio. The footage revealed his violent intentions, his use of racist slurs, and his plan to kill who he thought was his opponent. The video also showed the failure of both his and her security teams to prevent the breach, highlighting the danger she faced.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, the authorities neither arrested nor questioned the intruder. Instead, the former First Lady, a Black woman, was detained and interrogated as if she were the aggressor. It wasn’t until the security footage was reviewed that the truth was undeniable: she had acted in self-defense against a deliberate attack.
A week later, authorities showed the video to the public. The opposing campaign scrambled to make excuses, suggesting that the former First Lady should have chosen a different dressing room and their candidate had every right to be where he was. But the damage was done. The public, especially the supporters of the former First Lady and her candidate, were galvanized. They were more determined than ever to prevent such evil from reaching the Oval Office.
Ultimately, what began as a night of political celebration became a defining moment in the campaign. One woman’s bravery, coupled with the quick thinking of ordinary citizens, may have saved her life and the nation’s future.
On August 6, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson wrote on Substack the following entry, it was to the point and told exactly what people should know about Tim Walz. He is a decent human being. Who has done a number of things in life. Some of those things came at making human decisions. Fallible to a point, he may be. Who isn’t? Heather’s writing begins next –––
Today Vice President Kamala Harris named her choice for her vice presidential running mate: Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota. Walz grew up in rural Nebraska. He enlisted in the Army National Guard when he was 17 and served for 24 years, retiring in 2005 as a command sergeant major, making him the highest-ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress, according to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.
He went to college with the educational benefits afforded him thanks to his service in the Army, and graduated from Chadron (Nebraska) State College. From 1989 to 1990, he taught at a high school in China, then became a social studies teacher in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met fellow teacher Gwen Whipple, who became his wife. They moved to Minnesota, where they both continued teaching and had two children, Hope and Gus, through IVF.
Walz became the faculty advisor for the school’s gay-straight alliance organization at the same time that he coached the high-school football team from a 0–27 record to a state championship. The advisor “really needed to be the football coach, who was the soldier and was straight and was married,” Walz said in 2018.
Walz ran for Congress in 2005 after some of his students were asked to leave a rally for George W. Bush because one of them had a sticker for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Walz won and served in Congress for twelve years, sitting on the House Agriculture Committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.
Voters elected Walz to the Minnesota state house in 2018, and in his second term they gave him a slim majority in the state legislature. With that support, Walz signed into law protections for abortion rights, supported gender-affirming care, and legalized the recreational use of marijuana. He signed into law gun safety legislation and protections for voting rights, and pushed for action to combat climate change and to promote renewable energy.
Strong tax revenues and spending cuts gave the state a $17.6 billion surplus, and the Democrats under Walz used the money not to cut taxes, as Republicans wanted, but to invest in education, fund free breakfast and lunch for schoolchildren, make tuition free at the state’s public colleges for students whose families earned less than $80,000 a year, and invest in paid family and medical leave and health insurance coverage regardless of immigration status.
While MAGA Republicans are already trying to define Walz as “far left,” his votes in Congress put him pretty squarely in the middle. His work with Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan to expand technology production and infrastructure funding in the state was rewarded in 2023, when Minnesota knocked Texas out of the top five states for business. The CNBC rating looked at 86 indicators in 10 categories, including the workforce, infrastructure, health, and business friendliness.
Walz checks a number of boxes for the 2024 election, most notably that he hails from near the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and comes across as a normal, nice guy. He favors unions, workers’ rights, and a $15 minimum wage. He is also the person who coined the phrase that took away the dangerous overtones of today’s MAGA Republicans by dubbing them “weird.” As a student of his said: “In politics he’s good at calling out B.S. without getting nasty or too down in the dirt…. It’s the kind of common sense he showed as a coach: practical and kinda goofy.”
Walz is also a symbol of an important resetting of the Democratic Party. He has been unapologetic about his popular programs. On Sunday, July 28, when CNN’s Jake Tapper listed some of Walz’s policies and asked if they made Walz vulnerable to Trump calling him a “big government liberal,” Walz joked that he was, indeed, a “monster.”
“Kids are eating and having full bellies so they can go learn, and women are making their own health care decisions, and we’re a top five business state, and we also rank in the top three of happiness…. The fact of the matter is,” where Democratic policies are implemented, “quality of life is higher, the economies are better…educational attainment is better. So yeah, my kids are going to eat here, and you’re going to have a chance to go to college, and you’re going to have an opportunity to live where we’re working on reducing carbon emissions. Oh, and by the way, you’re going to have personal incomes that are higher, and you’re going to have health insurance. So if that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the label.”
Right-wing reactionary politicians have claimed to represent ordinary Americans since the time of the passage of the Voting Rights Act—on August 6, 1965, exactly 59 years ago today—by insisting that a government that works for communities is a “socialist” plan to elevate undeserving women and racial, ethnic, and gender minorities at the expense of hardworking white men.
Historically, though, rural America has quite often been the heart of the country’s progressive politics, and the Midwest has had a central place in that progressivism. Walz reintegrates that history with today’s Democratic Party.
That reintegration has left the Republicans flatfooted. Trump and J.D. Vance expected to continue their posturing as champions of the common man, but on that front the credentials of a New York real estate developer who inherited millions of dollars and of a Yale-educated venture capitalist pale next to a Nebraska-born schoolteacher. Bryan Metzger, politics reporter at Business Insider, pointed out that J.D. Vance tried to hit Walz as a “San Francisco-style liberal,” but while Vance lived in San Francisco as a venture capitalist between 2013 and 2017, Walz went to San Francisco for the first time just last month.
Head writer and producer of A Closer Look at Late Night with Seth Meyers Sal Gentile summed up Walz’s progressive politics and community vibe when he wrote on social media: “Tim Walz will expand free school lunches, raise the minimum wage, make it easier to unionize, fix your [carburetor], replace the old wiring in your basement, spray that wasp’s nest under the deck, install a new spring for your garage door and put a new chain on your lawnmower.”
Vice President Harris had a very deep bench from which to choose a running mate, but her choice of Walz seems to have been widely popular. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who are usually on opposite sides of the party, both praised the choice, prompting Ocasio-Cortez to post: “Dems in disconcerting levels of array.”
Harris and Walz held their first rally together tonight in Philadelphia, where Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, who had been a top contender for the vice presidential slot, fired up the crowd. “Each of us has a responsibility to get off the sidelines, to get in the game, and to do our part,” he said. “Are you ready to do your part? Are you ready to form a more perfect union? Are you ready to build an America where no matter what you look like, where you come from, who you love, or who you pray to, that this will be a place for you? And are you ready to look the next president of the United States in the eye and say, ‘Hello, Madam President?’ I am too, so let’s get to work!”
Pennsylvania is a crucial state, and Shapiro issued a statement offering his “enthusiastic support” to the ticket. He pledged “to work to unite Pennsylvanians behind my friends Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and defeat Donald Trump.”
In the heart of Georgia, the political landscape was shifting beneath the surface, unseen by most but sensed by many. The Georgia State Election Board, a government body entrusted with overseeing the state’s election rules, had recently become a focal point of national attention. Former President Donald Trump had praised the board in an unusual move, commending three members: Janice Johnston, Rick Jeffares, and Janelle King. “Pitbulls fighting for honesty, transparency, and victory,” he had called them. But what exactly were they fighting for?
Max Flugrath, director of communications for Fair Fight Action, a keen political observer, had meticulously followed these developments. He noted the oddity of Trump’s involvement in such detailed matters. Typically, Trump preferred grand gestures and sweeping statements rather than delving into the minutiae of election certification rules. Yet here he was, thanking these newly appointed board members for their efforts to change Georgia’s certification rules.
The backdrop to this intrigue was a rapidly approaching election, less than 100 days away. The Trump-aligned members of the Georgia State Election Board had convened a meeting that Flugrath noted was unlawfully noticed and carried out. In this meeting, they advanced changes to the state’s election certification process, changes that could potentially undermine the democratic processes in Georgia. These changes could lead to delays in election results, create uncertainty, and allow for manipulation of the election outcome, a cause for concern for all citizens.
A lawsuit quickly followed, challenging the legality and transparency of the board’s actions. The controversy forced the board to hold another vote on some of the proposed election rule changes, scheduled for Tuesday, August 6. The proposed changes were alarming to many. One such rule would empower local election officials to slow down or refuse to certify the 2024 election results. With election deniers in local election positions, the implications were chilling.
Flugrath’s analysis painted a stark picture. The new rules, if passed, could be used to sow doubt in the election results, creating delays and uncertainty. The behavior you read about is not just a Georgia issue; similar behavior patterns were emerging in other states. Across the country, efforts were underway to change election rules, often under the guise of ensuring honesty and transparency. It’s vital for Americans to remain vigilant and demand transparency in these processes, as they have the potential to undermine the very foundation of democratic elections.
In Texas, a similar narrative was unfolding. The state’s election board, encouraged by Georgia’s actions, began proposing changes to the certification process. In Florida, [newly appointed election officials, who were praised by Trump for their dedication and were seen as his allies], were pushing for rules that would grant them unprecedented power over election outcomes. Even in Pennsylvania, whispers of changes to election certification rules were becoming louder.
As the shadows of democracy stretched across the nation, citizens found themselves in a united battle for the integrity of their elections. Flugrath’s warnings resonated, echoing the sentiments of those who valued transparency and fairness. The fight was about the upcoming election and preserving the principles that had long underpinned the democratic process. It’s a fight that unites us all, regardless of our political affiliations.
The day the vote arrived in Georgia. Protesters gathered outside the election board’s meeting, voicing dissent. Inside, the tension was palpable. The board members, conscious of the national scrutiny, deliberated their decision. The future of Georgia’s election rules hung in the balance, a microcosm of the broader struggle across the United States.
As the sun set, the board announced its decision. The proposed changes got narrowly voted down, a victory for those advocating transparency and fairness. But the battle was far from over. The events in Georgia had set a precedent, a reminder of the fragility of democracy and the constant vigilance required to protect it.
Flugrath watched the aftermath with cautious optimism. The shadows of inequity are held at bay for now, but the fight for the soul of American democracy continued. The story unfolded in real-time, with the stakes higher than ever.
This story is about a news report that could be featured in any newspaper or news program in the United States. It is taken from actual events currently taking place. Whether or not this is the exact outcome relies upon the people of Georgia. The news report may be the opposite of what you just read. The board voted to instate these rules and overthrow the state election to favor any person of their choice.
It was the end of October, and the nation seemed to be in a state of distraction, unaware of the critical choice before them. Two men were vying for the highest office in the land, each bringing with him a starkly different vision for the future. The contrast between their characters and intentions was as clear as day, yet the people’s attention was elsewhere. The urgency of the situation was palpable, but the people were yet to realize the gravity of their decision.
The first candidate was an elder statesman, a man whose career in public service spanned decades. He had held nearly every elected position imaginable, from local government to the halls of Congress. His dedication to the country was unwavering, a testament to his deep-seated patriotism. His life’s work, a reflection of his commitment to protecting the essence of the country he loved, was a beacon of trust and reliability for the nation.
In stark contrast stood the second candidate, a man whose motives were as transparent as they were troubling. Self-serving and careless, he made no secret of his intentions. He openly declared that, if elected, he would rule with an iron fist, punishing his enemies and consolidating power from day one. His rhetoric was filled with hate, yet the people, weary of the same old political games, dismissed his threats as mere bluster. This transparency, however, should have been a warning sign, a call for vigilance in the face of such extremism.
The campaign’s intensity grew as the days turned into weeks, yet the nation’s focus remained elsewhere. Perhaps it was the fatigue of constant political turmoil or the distractions of everyday life, but the electorate seemed indifferent, almost numb. They laughed off the second candidate’s tirades, convinced that such extremism could never take root in their democracy.
Election day arrived, and with it, a shocking outcome. The self-serving, hateful man had won. The people who had laughed at his threats now watched in stunned silence as he took the oath of office. His promises of dictatorship were not idle threats; they were his blueprint for governance, a reality that had suddenly come to pass. This was not just the result of one man’s ambition, but a collective decision made by the electorate.
From the very first day, the new President began to reshape the government to suit his whims. He targeted his opponents with a vengeance, using the full power of his office to silence dissent. Civil liberties and democratic institutions were eroded and undermined. The press, once the people’s watchdog, was muzzled. The judiciary, a bulwark against tyranny, was co-opted. His actions, such as [specific actions], tightened his authoritarian grip and spread fear like wildfire.
The oldest-ever President, now retired, watched in horror as the nation he had served so faithfully became dismantled piece by piece. His warnings had gone unheeded, his life’s work seemingly undone in months. Once so dismissive of the threat, the people found themselves powerless to stop the descent into chaos. The retired President, too, felt the weight of his powerlessness, a stark contrast to his years of service and influence.
It was the end of the nation, an Ending which the country could have avoided.nation. An Ending that could have been avoided.
Mudslinging, once the most reprehensible act a political contestant could commit, was a behavior that branded the perpetrator as untrustworthy, someone respectable voters would never support. These were the days when community bonds were robust. Neighbors were familiar faces, and the widow down the street was always checked on. People went out of their way to support a friend’s business, driven by loyalty and the value of relationships.
Courtesy was not just a virtue, it was a way of life. You didn’t honk at the car ahead for hesitating at a stop sign, and everyone, regardless of race, was treated with respect. You honored their facilities at sporting events in neighboring towns, expecting the same respect in return during your homecoming games. These were the values that held our society together, and their erosion is a cause for concern.
Winning an election was once a sign of trust in the democratic process. It meant the elected individual would represent the community, county, state, or nation for their term. There was no need for your parents to rally the neighbors, seeking to punish those who voted differently or to overturn the results. They trusted the process and the enduring truth. However, today, this trust has seemingly eroded, and the need for reflection and change in our political and social interactions is more pressing than ever.
Today, it seems that the aim is not just to win, but to annihilate the opponent’s life and reputation.
This election isn’t about pitting the young against the old. It’s about ensuring that Gen Z and Millennials, who constitute a significant third of our nation’s population, have representation that mirrors their presence.
David Hogg Leaders We Deserve PBS Interview
Although remembered as older, numerous influential leaders initiated their activism in their youth. We aim to support these leaders—like John Lewis, who embarked on a mission for vital change at a young age and became one of our country’s most pivotal and influential leaders.
Our goal is straightforward: elect more youthful leaders capable of introducing fresh perspectives into our government.
Numerous barriers have historically prevented young people from entering public service and achieving the representation they deserve. Those who support America for all should make every effort to assist young candidates in overcoming these obstacles.
Visit Leaders We Deserve
After the setbacks of 2016, the 2018 blue wave brought the Democratic Party a renewed recognition of the influence young voters wield. In 2020, Joe Biden’s election, which was largely driven by the substantial turnout from Millennial and Gen Z voters, showcased the power of youthful participation. Your voice matters, and your vote can shape the course of our nation.
Vist The Post On Leaders We Deserve Winning!
In 2022, young voters reaffirmed their electoral influence, thwarting the anticipated “red wave.” Emerging young leaders like Justin Jones in Tennessee and Maxwell Frost in Florida gained prominence. Groups like “Leaders We Deserve” also celebrated their first endorsement success with Nadarius Clark’s election in Virginia.
Listen To Interviewof radio interview
The benefits of electing young leaders extend beyond Gen Z and Millennials; they enrich the nation and shape our future. Commencing political involvement at a young age capitalizes on time, making it a potent political ally. Gen Z’s potential longevity in Capitol Hill eclipses many, underscoring the urgency of their ascent to power. The time to act is now.
If you resonate with a mission and aspire to bolster the election of deserving leaders in 2024 and beyond, please act to support feasible campaigns like “Leaders We Deserve” to support their endeavors or find a campaign that will help elect a Democratic Candidate to office.
A Vote For Trump Is A Vote Against Democracy! Remember, Vote Blue When You Do!
My household has always maintained a relatively liberal understanding of the country’s homeless situation. We disagree with outlawing their right to exist and have a place to live and shelter. They are, after all, doing the best they can with the current housing, employment, transportation, or other issues they face. Let them be!
That is what our stance has been all along, until we went out to breakfast this past weekend and the police department was herding a group along the main boulevard we take to our restaurant. They appeared to be the characters you don’t want to run into in a dark alley at night—or daytime, for that matter. For Christ’s sake, were they planning to put roots down behind our neighborhood. We have a wall around the place, but salespeople always jump in and try to knock on doors. We have security but are not the type that can handle these characters. Every winter, we have a homeless troupe that typically arrives and camps near a river, but they are the same people every year, and they are like the snowbirds who flow in and out of the area from the north. These new homeless characters were of a family we never experienced before.
And that is what is scaring so many in America. The police found a suitable place for the troupe to travel on to, and there were no more sights of them after that initial spotting. But that is different for many in the country. These homeless populations inundate their communities, and it is an issue they have never before had to face. What if they are following suit? How many more will come? What problems will they bring with them? Will the property values deflate wherever they plant a stake? Jesus, are they diseased?
California has spent billions of dollars trying to fix its homeless problem and has failed to find a solution. The issue is greater there now than ever. Affordable housing remains unobtainable to those needing it. California is asking people to build tiny homes in their backyards, garages, wherever there is space, and make them available to house people. The problem is, if folks don’t want them in their alleys, will they want them in their garages?
Locally in Phoenix, Arizona. My husband hired an unhoused person years ago and knew she was, although she had not disclosed so on her introduction form. He worked with her schedule to make sure she kept her employment, and within six months, she was able to get a studio apartment, moving from her car. She then told him. He said he knew all along, and that is why he had worked so hard to keep her going, and she turned out to be one of the best employees. Such an example may not be the case with every person, but it is an example of how we can attribute ourselves to improving the situation one person at a time.
While feeling uneasy about sudden changes in your community is natural, it’s important to remember that homelessness is not a choice for many people. They often face a variety of challenges, including mental health issues, substance abuse, lack of affordable housing, and unemployment, which can contribute to their situation.
As for the broader issue of homelessness, it’s clear that a comprehensive and compassionate approach is needed to address the root causes and provide effective solutions. This approach may include increasing access to affordable housing, expanding mental health and addiction services, and providing job training and employment opportunities for homeless individuals.
The Supreme Court now has the issue, and the Lord only knows what they will come up with. But no doubt Texas will pass a law ordering the execution of all homeless people after 30 days of being homeless.
Joe Biden has taken 382 vacation days off to date. That equates to over one full year on vacation out of 3 years as US president. Is he the most ineffective US president in history?
Answered by Benjamin via benandsteve.com
We take your word it was 382. I need President Biden’s schedule to confirm such details. Since the job is 24/7, 365 days a year, you never have any privacy, nor a day without less than twenty interruptions, even when on vacation. The vacation days alone don’t necessarily reflect a president’s effort. Being president is a demanding job that comes with its own set of challenges and responsibilities. While the president must take breaks and maintain a work-life balance, one should consider the number of vacation days in the broader context of one president over another president’s performance, decision-making, and leadership.
Every presidency has challenges and circumstances, and comparing one president’s vacation days to another does not give a comprehensive view of their effectiveness. When evaluating a presidency’s effectiveness, it’s also essential to consider the accomplishments, policies enacted, and challenges faced.
The information provided may be more accurate or presented better to portray a specific narrative. It’s always a good idea to fact-check information and consider multiple perspectives before forming an opinion.
For a fact, here’s what Biden didn’t do:
He never only started his work days around 11 am or 11:3AM, crisis or not.
Never made an ass out of himself on a global stage.
Never has had disregards to promises made during his campaign.
He Never has been impeached.
Biden didn’t get impeached a second time.
Biden never had to survive a Senate trial that most senators later – admit that they should’ve voted and should’ve been guilty.
Biden didn’t get indicted – FOUR TIMES.
It wasn’t Biden who tried overturning the People’s Will in the 2020 *Election by inciting an insurrection!
No Biden didn’t call the Georgia Secretary of State and attempt to *Strong arm him into creating 12,000 more votes in his favor.
Biden didn’t take papers from the national archives and refuse to return them to the United States Government. Going as far as to tell employees to hide the location of the boxes that contained them from authorities. Then, he agreed to return them and never did so. Then, having the stated allegations recorded on the video camera and denying it was real, lying to the FBI (also a crime.)
The list of things President Biden never did could go on, but it would be easier if you tuned into Court TV Monday through Friday.
Those are the differences you can make between Biden and Trump, which is just the start!
The documentary “1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted a Culture” delves into a controversial and thought-provoking topic that challenges conventional beliefs about the Bible and homosexuality. Directed by Sharon “Rocky” Roggio, the film examines the claim that the Bible originally did not mention homosexuality and that references to it were added due to mistranslation and misunderstanding of ancient Greek terms.
The film highlights the work of Christian scholars who delve into forgotten archives at Yale University to uncover the origins of this mistranslation. It argues that conservative Christians began to propagate this mistranslation in the 1970s to scapegoat the LGBTQ+ community and oppose their growing liberation movement.
Roggio, who identifies as a lesbian and is the daughter of an evangelical minister, engages in dialogues with her father throughout the film, attempting to find common ground and challenge his beliefs about homosexuality being a sin. This personal narrative adds depth and emotion to the documentary, as it explores the complexities of faith, identity, and acceptance within a family divided by differing views on sexuality and religion.
The documentary sheds light on the potential harm caused by misunderstandings and misinterpretations of religious texts, highlighting the real-world consequences faced by LGBTQ+ individuals who have been marginalized, discriminated against, and even persecuted due to these beliefs.
Overall, “1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted a Culture” offers a compelling perspective on a contentious issue, urging viewers to question and reevaluate long-held beliefs and encouraging dialogue, understanding, and acceptance.
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender National Hotline 1-888-843-4564. “The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender National Hotline provide telephone and email peer-counseling, as well as factual information and local resources for cities and towns across the United States.
When A Law Maker Takes Amen Corner To The People’s House
In a scene straight out of a dystopian movie about America’s collapse into christofascism, here’s a video of Arizona State Senator Anthony Kern and his group of anti-abortion zealots on their hand and knees in the the AZ State House Chamber of the state capital, engaging in tongues-praying for the reinstatement of a near-total abortion ban from 1864.
Image is not that of any person appearing in report.
Kern — a former code enforcement officer who was fired for lying and “string of other disciplinary problems” — can be seen on the carpet with his gang of extremists circled around the Arizona state seal in the carpet, babbling fervently for divine intervention to resurrect a Civil War-era law.
As Public affairs strategist Tony Cani points out, the real kicker is that they didn’t even need to pray; the groundwork for this moment had been meticulously laid out years prior.
That sounds like a striking and controversial scene, blending elements of politics, religion, and history. The image you’ve painted paints a vivid picture of the tensions surrounding issues like abortion and the intersection of religion and politics in American society.
It’s always concerning when political figures engage in such public displays of religious fervor to push a specific agenda, especially when it involves legislation that could significantly impact people’s lives. The blending of state and religious symbols in a governmental chamber can raise questions about the separation of church and state, a foundational principle in the United States.
The fact that Senator Anthony Kern has a history of disciplinary problems adds another layer of complexity to the situation. It raises questions about his credibility and the motivations behind such a public and symbolic act.
Tony Cani’s observation about the groundwork being laid out years prior underscores the idea that these moments are often carefully orchestrated for maximum impact. It highlights the strategic nature of political theater and the lengths to which some will go to advance their agenda.
It’s essential for citizens to remain informed and critically evaluate these actions, ensuring that decisions made by elected officials are in the best interest of all constituents and uphold the principles of democracy and justice.
One could bring up a valid point about the intersection of religion and politics, especially when politicians use religious displays as a means to appear more righteous or to gain public support for their agenda. The scripture from Matthew 6:5-8 that is mentioned highlights the importance of sincerity and humility in religious practice, cautioning against performative acts of piety.
When politicians engage in public displays of religious fervor, it can raise questions about their sincerity and motivations. Are they genuinely acting out of religious conviction, or are they using religion as a tool to advance their political goals? The line between genuine faith and political opportunism can become blurred, leading to skepticism and mistrust among the public.
It’s essential for voters and citizens to be discerning and critical of such displays, ensuring that they hold their elected officials accountable for their actions and motivations. Blind acceptance of religious or political rhetoric without critical evaluation can lead to the exploitation of faith for political gain.
Ultimately, the misuse of religion for political purposes can undermine the true essence of faith, which should be centered on love, compassion, and genuine connection with the divine, rather than on power, control, or political advantage.
Florida has a new law that is designed to fill prisons.
‘We will catch you and we will prosecute you’: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is cracking down on retail theft – how he’ll ‘distinguish’ the state from ‘lawless jurisdictions’ https://t.co/ksBOXG9D7V via @flipboard
— benandstevecom Galaxy8News (@benandstevecom) April 17, 2024
Commercial Incarceration Facilities Prospering In Florida. Investments in private prisons contracted with Florida show favor with new laws designed to provide continous population on a rotational basis.
The growth and prosperity of commercial incarceration facilities in Florida have been a topic of debate and concern for many. Investments in private prisons have indeed increased in recent years, and this growth can be attributed to several factors, including new laws and policies that aim to maintain a steady population within these facilities.
One of the key issues often raised regarding private prisons is the potential conflict of interest that arises when profit motives intersect with the administration of justice. Critics argue that the financial incentives associated with running a for-profit prison may lead to practices that prioritize cost-cutting over the well-being and rehabilitation of inmates.
Proponents of private prisons, on the other hand, argue that these facilities can operate more efficiently than their public counterparts, potentially saving taxpayer money. They also point to contractual agreements that often include occupancy guarantees, ensuring a consistent revenue stream for investors.
However, concerns persist about the quality of care and services provided in private prisons, as well as the potential for abuse and neglect. Reports of overcrowding, inadequate medical care, and safety issues have raised alarm bells among advocates for criminal justice reform.
In Florida, the state has entered into contracts with private prison companies to house a portion of its inmate population. With new laws designed to ensure a continuous flow of inmates into these facilities, investors in private prisons may see this as a lucrative opportunity for growth.
It’s essential to approach the topic of private prisons with a critical lens, considering both the potential benefits and drawbacks associated with their operation. As the debate continues, policymakers, advocates, and stakeholders must work together to ensure that any expansion of private prisons prioritizes public safety, justice, and the well-being of inmates.
Billy Idol was doing a cover of “Mony Mony“…a song written and performed originally by Tommy James and the Shondells in 1968. The meaning of MonyMony is simply…Mutual of New York Insurance Company. M-O-N-Y.
Tommy James explained in an interview: “Originally, we did the track without a song. And the idea was to create a party rock record; in 1968 that was pretty much of a throwback to the early ’60s. Nobody was making party rock records really in 1968, those big-drum-California-sun-what-I-sing-money-type songs. And so I wanted to do a party rock record.
And we went in the studio, and we pasted this thing together out of drums here, and a guitar riff here. It was called sound surgery, and we finally put it together in probably a month. We had most of the words to the song, but we still had no title. And it’s just driving us nuts, because we’re looking for like a ‘Sloopy’ or some crazy name – it had to be a two-syllable girl’s name that was memorable and silly and kind of stupid sounding. So we knew what kind of a word we had, it’s just that everything we came up with sounded so bad. So Ritchie Cordell, my songwriting partner and I, are up in my apartment up at 888 Eighth Avenue in New York. And finally we get disgusted, we throw our guitars down, we go out on the terrace, we light up a cigarette, and we look up into the sky. And the first thing our eyes fall on is the Mutual of New York Insurance Company. M-O-N-Y. True story. With a dollar sign in the middle of the O, and it gave you the time and the temperature.
I had looked at this thing for years, and it was sitting there looking me right in the face. We saw this at the same time, and we both just started laughing. We said, ‘That’s perfect! What could be more perfect than that?’ Mony, M-O-N-Y, Mutual of New York. And so we must have laughed for about ten minutes, and that became the title of the song.”
The Story Of My Grandparents May Hold Guiding Strengths For Us Today
(gifted clock)
The story of my grandparents’ union goes back to August 10th, 1910. They wed on the Caddo and Washita County Line near where SH-152 is today, West of Cobb Creek. On that day, my grandfather, Benjamin Harrison Groff I., known as “Pop,” and my grandmother, Florence Lula McElroy, known as “Mom,” received a clock from Pop’s brother-in-law and sister, John and Laura Alice Groff Dowty. A piece of further history, Pop’s father was born in Switzerland, and Mom’s Father came into the world in Louisianna before its statehood.
It was in 1908 that Florence traveled with some of her siblings to the area to visit her brother Jim, who had married into the McLemore family. While visiting, she met Benjamin and fell in love; in those days, Ben was to ask her father for a hand in marriage before asking the bride. But Florence’s father was in that 3-state area of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas and unable to travel due to his age. Economically, the to-be groom could not travel to the area. So, the agreement was that the bride’s oldest brother, John, would come to Eakly and consider Benjamin’s request for her hand in marriage. And John rode a horse from far southeast Oklahoma to Eakly, Oklahoma, for the request. The answer must have been yes because they wed.
Mom’s family lived in Southwest Arkansas, Southeast Oklahoma, and parts of Northeast Texas. They were within rock-throwing distance, and they never knew which state they were in. Her father was a Baptist preacher who led a fire and brimstone ministry and led by strict rule. He had fought in the Civil War, but on which side I never knew. The only answer I ever got was, “he fought on the right side.” There were twelve kids in the McElroy family. Some of them were dead by old age when I was born in 1963.
Groff BARN
The Groff family migrated from Illinois, where Pop’s father was a farmer. He was known for having a huge barn in the community. It is one of the only to have been built by his sons and stands without a single piece of iron or nail. The Groff Barn built by Ulrich Groff and his sons remained put together using carpentry skills Ulrich Groff’s father taught him from the old land as late as 2000.
Above a rowdy bunch together the Groff Brothers who built the all wood barn in Illinois, in the 1800s.
OTIS GROFF
in 1905 two sons, Otis and Benjamin, took advantage of the opening of land in Oklahoma and claimed property west of Cobb Creek, north of SH-152 and Highway 58. It was then known as 41 Highway and Alfalfa Road. The brothers built two homes; Benjamin’s was on the property where, over sixty-five years later, the baseball player from Eakly, Michael Moore, and his family would live. It is the same home where the couple, Mom and Pop, would later raise three children and adopt another unofficially, taking in others in need. The father of the boys, Ulrich, came to Oklahoma, but word was he was afraid of being attacked by Indians, so he went back to Illinois.
(Mom & Pop Wedding Day)
On the day of their wedding, sitting in a buggy along a dirt road west of Cobb Creek, a photographer was on hand to record an image of the couple, and then John Dowty handed them a new clock he had bought from a hardware store in Eakly. To keep their love from running out of time. The clock remained in their home, ticking every day since.
The couple had three children: Bennie Ulridge, Dortha Eliouse, and JD.
JD GROFF 14YOA. 1936
My dad, JD, is named after John Dowty. But the Mom and Pop wished to honor a man known as either Big John Dowty or Uncle John Dowty by using just the two initials, without an abbreviation. It sometimes appeared as a curse for my dad because he would go through life telling people who placed periods with J and D that they had incorrectly spelled his name. I have heard him say, “It’s two letters, and you mess it up!”
Ben H. ‘Pop’ Groff I
The Clock: Even after retiring from their farm and moving to town, they took the clock, which remained essential to their lives. It remained running, being cleaned at a clock repair once, only when Mom and Pop watched over the repair man like hawks. When they passed, it came to my parent’s home, where it sat on the fireplace mantel and went silent. When the day came for our family to sell our homeplace, I retrieved the clock and brought it to Arizona. My first task was to clean it. It keeps time great. It is picky and must be balanced, and its ticker has to be ‘set’ at just the right spot, or it will stop. It is picky about the key turning the spring up tight. The springs are old. So it is like an old violin and has to be handled with kid gloves. The wood is brittle and old, and the design is very ornate. It may not be to the liking of every modern setting. But, it is over one hundred years old and dear. And it holds many hours of memories of sitting at my grandparents, hearing its tick-tock, listening to their stories, worries, and hopes for the day.
Mom & Pop Groff
The older people were our glue. They would hold yearly family reunions after the harvest had ended. Celebrate every holiday grandly and make weekends and summers the most incredible escapes. Plus, they oozed with class and style. The character and morals they possessed are qualities sorely missed and that are needed today as we try to soar in this world of divided opinions.
When Good Guys And Gals Still Finished First. They Were Made To.
JD Groff & his Horse My Molly’s Reed
My dad was known for doing such things unselfishly. He had a reputation throughout Western Oklahoma as a trustworthy horseman and businessman. I found this article while going through clippings. I discovered that it had been stored in an attic at my parent’s home after my mother sold it to move in with relatives due to her age. I was born in 1963 and have never heard this story. I had listened to my grandmother speak of a story in national newspapers about my dad helping a man, but I thought it had something to do with his being in World War II. He never spoke much of the past and only looked to the future. Something that I became used to and have often found myself doing until I found boxes of memories that took me into the lives of my parents and grandparents and a life that I am proud of bragging about.
(The following piece was first presented on Quora when a question was poised by a Trump supporter.)
I’m a little perplexed by your attitude here – why does it need to be so adversarial?
Let’s be straight here, though: Democrats don’t want to stop you voting for whoever you please. That’s the nature of a democracy: everybody gets a voice, and you can use that voice as you see fit. If you want to vote for Donald Trump, go right ahead – just know that you’re telling us quite a bit about yourself when you make that choice, and it’s not a positive one.
This is the part, I suspect, that some Republicans don’t understand. Democrats largely wouldn’t want to stop you from voting, although we can’t say the same for Republicans, because they do want to stop people voting, judging by all the state-level attempts at voter suppression. What we want is for you to stop making such god-awful decisions when you do vote. We want you to pick someone that raises your aspirations and wants something better for you, rather than the lowest common denominator.
We get it: you want to “own the libs”, and you want someone that will aggressively go after those people who don’t agree with you. I can understand that: you guys don’t like your lifestyle or beliefs being challenged, and when you feel that way, you probably feel under threat, and the response some will take in that situation is to lash out. You’re letting people like Donald Trump do that on your behalf.
Problem is, when you make decisions like that, you’re only thinking about yourself or your local bubble, rather than what’s best for everyone. The United States isn’t a religious, social or political monoculture: it’s an inclusive society that has a diverse range of beliefs, opinions and choices. Any effective government exists not to promote just the well-being of a single group (e.g. white ‘conservative’ Christians), but rather to promote what’s best for everybody.
Your choices aren’t something I’d consider laudable: I won’t stop you making them, because you have to let people make mistakes in order to learn from them. But you’re out of your mind if you don’t think I won’t advocate better choices, or at least encourage you to see your mistakes for what they are.
So, by all means, vote for Donald Trump if you must, but recognise that I’ll disagree with your choice, and encourage you to make better ones. When I look at who to vote for, I’ll always aim for the person who has higher aspirations for the country, for who has a clear desire to break past partisan bickering and legislative logjam, and aim to do what’s best for everyone, including you. You and I both know that Donald Trump is mostly out there to do what’s best for himself, and that you’re okay with that provided he hurts those you don’t agree with.
Just remember that these things have a way of backfiring. You put an aggressive, adversarial and ignorant President into office, particularly one known for cheating, philandering and lying his ass off, and it’s only a matter of time before he turns against you, particularly if he doesn’t feel the need for you anymore.
I think you can do better. Actually, I think you must do better. That’s what being a “true American” is all about, after all: striving towards something that was better than what came before it. It’s rather worrying that too many Americans have forgotten that.
BENANDSTEVEDOTCOM THE INSTAGRAM.COM PAGE
INFORMATION AND MORE THAT MAY BE USEFUL IN DAILY LIFE.
