America Then and Now: From Trump’s First Day to May 13, 2026
On January 20, 2017, when Donald Trump first placed his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office, America entered one of the most turbulent and transformative periods in modern history. Supporters saw a political outsider promising to “drain the swamp,” restore manufacturing, secure borders, and confront institutions many Americans no longer trusted. Critics saw a dangerous shift away from democratic norms, political restraint, and traditional alliances. Nearly a decade later, on May 13, 2026, the United States is not the same nation it was on that cold January afternoon.
The changes have touched every corner of American life — politics, media, policing, religion, race relations, public trust, education, immigration, foreign policy, and even how neighbors speak to one another.
America has not merely changed politically.
It has changed emotionally.
In 2017, political division certainly existed, but there were still areas where Americans generally trusted the same institutions. Major news organizations still held broad authority. Scientific agencies were rarely treated as enemies. Elections, while contested, were still largely accepted as final. Disagreements happened, but many people still believed the country operated within a shared reality.
Today, that shared reality appears fractured.
The rise of social media influence, partisan broadcasting, independent online commentary, conspiracy culture, and algorithm-driven outrage has reshaped how Americans consume information. Millions of citizens now live inside entirely different versions of the country depending on what they watch, read, and believe. To one American, the nation is being saved. To another, it is collapsing. Both may live on the same street while barely recognizing one another’s understanding of truth.
Trust — once damaged — became one of the first casualties of the Trump era.
The years following 2017 saw impeachment battles, protests, investigations, riots, accusations of election interference, and a global pandemic that exposed deep weaknesses in national unity. The arrival of COVID-19 in 2020 transformed the nation in ways historians will debate for generations. Masks became political symbols. Vaccines became ideological battlegrounds. Families split apart over beliefs. Schools closed. Businesses vanished. Millions lost jobs, loved ones, or stability.
At the same time, movements such as Black Lives Matter and counter-movements supporting law enforcement reshaped public discourse surrounding race and policing. Police officers found themselves increasingly scrutinized, recorded, criticized, and in some cases abandoned by political leaders. Yet communities suffering from crime simultaneously begged for stronger protection and stability. The nation entered a strange contradiction: distrusting police while demanding safety.
The justice system itself became politicized in the eyes of millions.
One side viewed Trump as unfairly persecuted by a political establishment determined to stop him at all costs. The other viewed investigations and prosecutions as accountability finally reaching a man they believed operated above the law. The result was devastating to public confidence. Americans no longer simply disagreed on policies — they disagreed on whether institutions themselves could still be trusted.
Meanwhile, immigration transformed into one of the defining emotional and political battles of the age. Border security, asylum claims, human trafficking, labor shortages, humanitarian concerns, and national identity collided in a debate that grew increasingly heated with every passing year. Images of overcrowded facilities, migrant caravans, and overwhelmed cities became central political weapons for both parties. To some Americans, stronger borders symbolized survival. To others, compassion and asylum reflected the nation’s moral responsibility.
Religion changed too.
Church attendance continued declining in many regions, while political identity increasingly merged with religious identity. Faith became not only spiritual, but tribal. In some churches, patriotism and Christianity became nearly inseparable. In others, religious leaders openly challenged nationalism and authoritarian tendencies. Americans began searching less for spiritual agreement and more for ideological reinforcement.
The economy also transformed dramatically.
Inflation, housing costs, corporate consolidation, labor shortages, and technological disruption changed daily life. The American dream — once measured by home ownership and financial security — became harder to reach for younger generations. Many Americans now work multiple jobs while carrying enormous debt. Small towns struggle to survive while massive corporations dominate commerce and information alike.
And yet, despite all of this, America did not stop moving forward.
Artificial intelligence exploded into public life. Remote work reshaped employment. Medical technology advanced. Independent journalism flourished online. Citizens who once had no voice suddenly reached millions through podcasts, blogs, videos, and social platforms. The gatekeepers lost control over information. That freedom empowered some people to tell important truths while allowing others to spread manipulation and fear.
That may be the defining struggle of America in 2026:
Not simply left versus right.
But truth versus persuasion.
The United States today is louder, angrier, more suspicious, and more divided than it was when Trump first entered office. Yet it is also more awake to its own fragility. Americans have witnessed how quickly trust can erode, how easily institutions can be questioned, and how dangerous it becomes when citizens stop believing they share the same nation.
Some believe the country is being rebuilt.
Others believe it is unraveling.
Perhaps both are happening at the same time.
History will likely remember the years between 2017 and 2026 as an era when America stopped assuming its future was guaranteed. The nation discovered that democracy is not self-sustaining, trust is not permanent, and freedom requires more than slogans shouted at rallies or hashtags typed online.
It requires citizens willing to listen even when they disagree.
Whether America still possesses enough of those citizens may determine what happens next.
There is no sense in debating the issues of abortion, racial prejudices involving the Palestinian People, and whether or not there is a God or the equal rights movement, in sixty years people will still be debating these issues, why fall in that trap?
For decades, anti-abortion organizations in America have cited Biblical authority as the foundational justification for their movement. Through protest signs, political speeches, church campaigns, and fundraising letters, they represent opposition to abortion not merely as a political issue, but as an unequivocal mandate from God. However, this essay contends that such appeals to scripture are selective and may overlook significant biblical passages that both complicate and, at times, directly challenge the certainty and absolutism with which many modern anti-abortion groups present their views.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter once suggested that there was no sense in debating the issues of abortion, racial prejudices involving the Palestinian People, and whether or not there is a God or the equal rights movement. Barry Goldwater overheard him saying that in 60 years, people will still fight one another over these subjects. Putting together an argument to be sure to use them as political hay, so there is no use in my falling for their trap! And he was right. Regardless of what is decided today, others will continue to argue for the rights of these regardless of what is decided now. Today is never definite.
Still.
The verses ignored in these debates are violent, uncomfortable, and inconvenient to absolute arguments.
One of the most often mentioned passages is Genesis 2:7, which says life begins when Adam receives “the breath of life.” People who oppose abortion interpret this verse in various ways, but critics say it suggests personhood starts at birth, with breath, instead of at conception. This view is very different from modern political claims that life begins at fertilization.
Exodus 21:22-25 discusses a scenario in which a pregnant woman is injured during a fight and consequently loses her fetus. According to scholars such as Phyllis Trible and John J. Collins, the punishment prescribed for this loss differs significantly from that for killing a person, indicating that the biblical text assigns a different value to fetal life (Trible, 1978; Collins, 2004).
Historians, including Jonathan Klawans and Christine Hayes, also contend that ancient Hebrew law did not equate fetal death with the killing of an already born individual, but rather treated it as a lesser offense within its legal system (Klawans, 2012; Hayes, 2001).
Perhaps most controversial is Numbers 5:11-31, called the “ordeal of bitter water.” In this passage, a priest performs a ritual on a woman suspected of adultery. Critics of anti-abortion theology say the text describes a divinely sanctioned miscarriage if adultery occurred. Opponents of modern anti-abortion activism see a contradiction: groups say the Bible always condemns abortion, yet they rarely discuss a passage that seems to permit or even command ending a pregnancy in some cases.
The criticism gets stronger when readers see violent Old Testament passages about pregnant women and children. In 2 Kings 8:12 and Hosea 13:16, invading armies rip open pregnant women. Isaiah 13:18 describes unborn children destroyed during judgment. Critics say that while these verses describe war or punishment, they challenge claims that scripture always treats fetal life as sacred.
To many observers, the issue is not merely theology — it is selective morality.
Critics say anti-abortion movements focus on a few verses while ignoring bigger Biblical themes, like poverty, healthcare, compassion, violence, orphan care, and social justice. Some also say these organizations fight abortion but oppose programs that could reduce unwanted pregnancies, like prenatal care, food aid, childcare, sex education, or affordable healthcare.
Others say the modern anti-abortion movement is political as well as religious. Historians have shown that abortion became a key issue in American conservative politics in the late 1970s and 1980s. It helped mobilize voters and build evangelical political power. Critics believe this history raises questions about whether the movement is based on scripture or on political strategy wrapped in religious language.
At the same time, many people of faith point to scriptures such as Psalm 139:13-16 (“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb”) and Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”) as evidence that unborn life holds deep spiritual value. For them, the abortion debate is not political, but a sincere belief that life is sacred from its earliest beginnings.
This does not mean that the Bible is “anti-abortion” or “pro-abortion”. The scriptures are ancient, complex, and have been read differently by various groups over hundreds of years. Many sincere believers oppose abortion because they value the unborn life. Critics, however, reject the idea that opposition is the only Christian view. People who believe in a sky daddy, and maybe still, in a real Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, or Easter Bunny, according to extreme critics.
The larger question may not be whether scripture can be used to oppose abortion. Clearly, it can.
The central issue, therefore, is whether anti-abortion groups sufficiently address the complexity and diversity inherent in Biblical teachings when presenting them as absolute authority in the abortion debate. This raises a broader question: whether these groups offer a comprehensive, contextually nuanced interpretation of scripture, or, as critics argue, oversimplify and selectively interpret biblical texts to serve specific political and ideological agendas. Thus, the debate centers not only on what the Bible says about abortion, but also on how faithfully its teachings are represented in contemporary discourse.
When difficult verses are excluded and uncomfortable passages ignored, faith risks drifting from spiritual truth toward political convenience. If scripture is going to be used to shape public belief, then all of scripture — including the passages that appear to challenge the argument — should be part of the discussion. As the old saying goes, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” People should be trusted to hear the full text and decide for themselves, rather than being instructed only on what they are expected to believe. Yet for some, allowing that kind of open examination may itself be seen as a threat to established belief.
Federal authorities are reportedly reviewing a growing number of deaths and disappearances involving scientists and researchers tied to aerospace, military, and nuclear-related programs across the United States — cases that are now drawing increasing public scrutiny and online speculation.
Among the names receiving renewed attention is Monica Jacinto Reza, a materials engineer associated with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and aerospace contractor Aerojet Rocketdyne, who disappeared while hiking in California during June 2025. Reza has not been located.
Her disappearance is one of several cases involving individuals connected to sensitive government research programs.
Retired Air Force Major General William “Neil” McCasland, former commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory, vanished from his Albuquerque residence in February 2026. Authorities stated personal belongings, including communication devices, remained at the home.
Anthony Chavez, formerly employed by Los Alamos National Laboratory, disappeared in New Mexico during May 2025.
Meanwhile, several researchers tied to NASA or affiliated scientific institutions have died in recent years under circumstances that continue drawing online attention, including Michael David Hicks, Frank Maiwald, and Caltech astrophysicist Carl Grillmair.
At present, there is no publicly available evidence establishing a direct connection among the cases.
Yet the growing public reaction may reveal something equally significant: the continuing erosion of trust between Americans and their institutions.
On social media and cable television, discussion surrounding the disappearances has increasingly merged with broader fears involving political extremism, government secrecy, foreign influence operations, surveillance, and authoritarian behavior.
Experts warn that such speculation often accelerates during periods of institutional distrust, particularly when official explanations are limited, delayed, or incomplete.
“What changes societies,” one former intelligence analyst noted in a previous national security forum, “is not always the event itself, but whether the public believes the explanation afterward.”
That concern appears increasingly visible in the United States.
Public distrust has intensified amid political polarization, expanding federal power debates, immigration crackdowns, aggressive rhetoric surrounding dissent, and ongoing controversy involving executive authority.
“History shows that when trust collapses, societies begin feeding themselves urban legends dressed in political clothing.”
In previous decades, Americans often associated political disappearances and unexplained deaths with unstable governments abroad. Increasingly, however, those same fears are appearing within domestic political discourse itself.
Whether these individual cases ultimately prove connected or entirely unrelated, they have exposed a growing national anxiety difficult to ignore:
Millions of Americans no longer feel certain they are being told the truth.
And once a nation reaches that point, speculation becomes unavoidable.
And those are only some of the names now circulating in reports, congressional discussions, online investigations, and cable news speculation.
To be absolutely clear: There is currently no public evidence proving these cases are connected.
But that disclaimer no longer calms people the way it once would have.
Because Americans have entered an age where trust in institutions has collapsed so completely that many citizens now instinctively believe the worst explanations first.
That alone should terrify us.
At the same time these disappearances fail to dominate headlines, Americans are watching dramatic changes around the White House itself — including controversy surrounding Trump’s proposed ballroom construction and expanding concrete work near the executive complex. In another era, Americans might have dismissed dark speculation instantly.
Today many no longer do.
Not because evidence exists. But because confidence no longer exists.
History shows what happens when governments stop answering questions clearly. Rumors become accepted reality. Fear replaces trust. Citizens begin wondering whether powerful people can make opponents, critics, immigrants, journalists — or scientists — simply vanish.
That is not supposed to happen in America.
Yet here we are.
Maybe every one of these tragedies has an unrelated explanation. Maybe every disappearance is coincidence. Maybe every death is exactly what officials say it is.
But when scientists connected to sensitive aerospace, military, and nuclear work begin disappearing across multiple states, Americans are going to ask questions.
And they should.
Because the moment citizens stop asking where people went… is the moment freedom itself begins disappearing too.
Yet today there begins a modern folklore, an urban legend – people online are asking “have they moved Jimmy Hoffa” and asking “is he now under Trump’s Ball room?” Or, “is that where the other bodies are going?” The message boards and threads are running wild. Whether as a citizen, or spectator from another country, please continue to do what is needed – keep asking questions.
There’s a growing frustration across the country, and it’s not hard to understand why.
Every election cycle seems to come with its own storm—court challenges, last-minute legislation, disputes over procedures, and loud claims designed to shake confidence in the process itself. From judges to election workers, from statehouses to social media, the noise never seems to stop.
So the question becomes simple, and fair:
How do you win when the game is constantly being interrupted?
The answer isn’t as dramatic as the problem—but it’s far more effective.
Win Bigger Than the Noise
Close elections invite chaos. That’s just the truth.
When margins are razor-thin, every ballot becomes a battlefield—every recount, every legal challenge, every procedural delay suddenly matters more than it should.
The simplest, most overlooked strategy is this:
Win by enough that the noise doesn’t matter.
That means turnout. It means organization. It means showing up long before Election Day and staying engaged long after.
Because a decisive outcome is the hardest thing to distort.
The Real Battlefield Isn’t the Headlines—It’s the Process
Most people watch elections through a television screen. But elections aren’t decided there.
They’re decided in:
County offices
Polling locations
Courtrooms
Administrative rulebooks
That’s where the real work happens.
Groups like the Brennan Center for Justice and coalitions such as Election Protection focus on something most people never see: the infrastructure of democracy itself.
Because here’s the truth most don’t want to say out loud:
If you’re not paying attention to the process, you’re already behind.
Because if you lose those, you lose the argument before it even begins.
The Real Strategy Moving Forward
If elections feel chaotic, the answer isn’t to match chaos with more chaos.
It’s to build something stronger than it.
Show up early
Organize locally
Support the people running the system
Communicate clearly
And most importantly—win decisively
Because the strongest defense against disruption isn’t outrage.
It’s preparation.
Closing
We are living in a time where trust is tested, systems are strained, and patience is thin.
But the foundation hasn’t changed.
The system only works if people stay in it. It only holds if people understand it. And it only endures if people are willing to defend it—not just with words, but with action.
Truth doesn’t shout. It stands. And in the end—Truth Endures.
A new bill in Louisiana aims to address homelessness through enforcement and court-directed programs. Supporters call it a pathway to services. Critics warn it could blur the line between help and coercion. This piece breaks down what the law actually says—and why it raises deeper questions about how we treat the most vulnerable among us.
There is a bill moving through Louisiana right now that deserves more than a passing glance. It deserves attention—clear-eyed, fact-based, and unflinching.
Because beneath the political talking points, something real is happening.
What the Bill Actually Does
Louisiana lawmakers have advanced a measure—commonly referenced as Louisiana House Bill 211 (2026)—that targets public camping and similar activities often associated with homelessness.
In plain terms:
Sleeping or camping in certain public spaces could become a criminal offense
Violations can lead to fines or jail time
Courts may direct individuals into structured programs or services as part of sentencing or diversion
Supporters argue this is about restoring order and connecting people with help. That is the stated intent.
And that part is factual.
Where the Concern Begins
Where this bill becomes controversial is not in what it says outright—but in how it operates in practice.
Critics—advocates, legal observers, and community groups—raise concerns that:
The “choice” between jail and programs may not feel like a choice at all
Court-directed participation in treatment or services could function as coercion under threat of punishment
Individuals may face financial obligations tied to those programs, depending on how they are administered
Those concerns are not invented—but they are also not fully settled facts across all interpretations of the bill.
They are warnings about what this kind of policy can become.
And history tells us those warnings are not without precedent.
The Line We Should Be Watching
There is a difference between:
Offering help and
Mandating compliance under penalty of jail
That line matters.
Because once a person’s existence—where they sleep, where they sit, where they try to survive—becomes criminalized, the system is no longer just offering assistance.
It is enforcing behavior.
What This Is—and What It Is Not
Let’s be precise, because precision matters:
It is true this bill criminalizes certain public behaviors tied to homelessness
It is true it allows courts to impose penalties, including jail
It is true it routes individuals into structured programs
It is not clearly established, based on current verified reporting, that:
People will universally be billed in a way that leads directly to punitive labor arrangements
Or that “forced unpaid labor” exists as a clearly defined, direct provision of the bill itself
Those claims are circulating—but they are interpretations and projections, not confirmed statutory facts.
And if we care about truth, we separate what is known from what is feared.
The Moral Question Still Stands
Even stripped down to verified facts, the question does not go away.
It becomes sharper.
What does it say about us if the primary tool we use to address homelessness is the criminal code?
What does it mean when the path to “help” runs through a courtroom?
And what happens when the least among us are told:
Comply—or face punishment.
A Final Word
You don’t have to exaggerate this bill to be troubled by it.
You don’t have to stretch facts to ask hard questions.
Because even at its most neutral reading, this legislation represents a shift— from compassion offered freely to compliance enforced by law.
Oklahoma election officials report that as many as 13,000 registered voters have changed their political affiliation in recent months—many moving from Republican to Democrat or Independent. On paper, it looks like a routine shift. But beneath those numbers is something much deeper—and far more concerning.
Because Oklahoma hasn’t just changed parties over the years. It has lost its voice.
There was a time when this state was overwhelmingly Democratic, but more importantly—it was locally driven. Communities knew their candidates. Campaigns were built in barbershops, cafés, and courthouse hallways—not in distant boardrooms. Leaders rose from the people they represented. Even figures like Carl Albert carried Oklahoma values with them to Washington, not the other way around.
Back then, politics wasn’t perfect—but it was personal.
Southeastern Oklahoma—“Little Dixie”—held strong Democratic roots that reflected the culture and working-class backbone of the region. Even in places like Tulsa and the northeast, where conservatism had a firmer grip, the political identity was still shaped by local influence, local relationships, and local accountability.
That began to change when money entered the room—and never left.
Over time, national political machines and out-of-state interests realized something: Oklahoma was fertile ground. Campaigns stopped being about neighbors convincing neighbors. They became about funding streams, media buys, consultants, and narratives crafted far beyond state lines. The candidates may still live here—but the strategies, the messaging, and often the priorities do not.
Even towns like Elk City, Oklahoma remember a time when national figures still spoke directly to local communities. Jimmy Carter built much of his campaign on that very idea—making personal promises and treating small towns like they mattered. And when he became President, he was known for keeping those commitments, returning to places others might have forgotten.
That kind of connection is hard to imagine today.
When Carter passed, the coverage—especially at the local level—felt noticeably quiet in places where, years ago, a visit like his would have been remembered and retold. Maybe that’s time passing. Or maybe it says something more about where we are now—where national politics has grown louder, more divided, and more distant from the very communities it once depended on. And maybe it says more about the community’s morals.
And that’s the real shift.
It’s not Republican versus Democrat. It’s local versus national control.
What we’re witnessing now—even in something as simple as voter registration changes—is the continued unraveling of a system that once belonged to the people who lived here. The decisions that affect Oklahoma communities are increasingly influenced by voices that have never set foot on our streets, never sat in our cafés, and never had to answer directly to the people they impact.
Oklahoma didn’t just evolve politically. It was overtaken.
And the question now isn’t which party wins next. It’s whether the people of this state will ever truly get their voice back. Even more importantly, will the people of Oklahoma ever stand and take their voice back!
This isn’t just an Oklahoma story—it applies to communities across the country. Every elected official, at every level, should be measured by one standard: are they truly representing the people they serve, or is it time for someone else to step in?
There comes a time when you have to draw a line and decide what you stand for. Because if you don’t stand for something, sooner or later you’ll fall for anything.
“I have made the decision to stop any association with content connected to CBS, CBS News, CNN, FOX, and Flipboard. I can no longer, in good conscience, republish material from these organizations. I also can’t promote content from organizations that use media in ways I find troubling.“
A Change in Direction
There are moments in history when small events start to reveal a much larger shift. What has been happening inside major American media organizations lately is one of those moments. Stephen Colbert is a prominent public voice. He finds himself at the center of controversy shortly after openly criticizing corporate decisions tied to network leadership. This situation naturally raises questions. Is outspoken criticism still welcome within the walls of the companies that broadcast it?
At the same time, reports of internal conflict surrounding the newsroom at 60 Minutes have emerged. These reports involve one of the most respected investigative news teams in television. They have only deepened those concerns. Leadership changes have occurred. Public statements from newsroom figures have surfaced. Accounts of staff unease suggest that journalists inside the organization are feeling pressures. These pressures extend beyond the simple business of reporting the news.
This is where the issue becomes larger than one show, one host, or even one network. The concern is about the atmosphere surrounding journalism itself. When reporters start to sense that pursuing certain stories will carry professional consequences, the chilling effect spreads quickly. Investigative reporting depends on courage, independence, and the understanding that truth—not corporate comfort or political pressure—guides editorial decisions.
My declaration about stepping away from redistributing material from major outlets is rooted in this concern. It is not an attack on journalism. In fact, it is the opposite. It is a defense of what journalism is supposed to be. A free press only remains free when reporters and editors can pursue facts without intimidation. They must be capable of chasing stories without fear of reprisal. Reporters should not have to wonder whether the story they are chasing will upset powerful interests behind the scenes.
Journalists should never have to look over their shoulder before telling the truth. If they do, the public will lose more than just a few television programs. They will also lose newspaper columns. We will lose something far more important. We will lose the ability to trust someone. Somewhere, someone is still willing to ask the hard questions.
History teaches us that the erosion of press freedom rarely begins with a dramatic announcement. It usually starts quietly—with a decision here, a resignation there, a story that suddenly feels too risky to pursue. The public does not notice at first. But journalists do. They feel the shift in the air long before anyone else sees it. When reporters question if the truth cost them their platform, the damage has begun. They question if it risks their career or the support of their newsroom. This damage shows that fear is overshadowing press freedom. My decision to step back from amplifying certain media outlets is not born from anger. It is born from concern. A healthy democracy depends on journalists who can pursue facts without fear. If the press ever needs to seek permission to reveal the truth, the public will suffer. This greater loss impacts more than just a television program or a headline. We will have lost our watchdog.
It is up to us. The average Joe. To start doing something. What will you do?
3 responses to “When the Press Begins to Look Over Its Shoulder”
It’s one of my concerns, too. The job of journalists and reporters becomes risky now. They’re not safe if they tell the truth, especially since powerful people are involved in it. I don’t know about news these days if it’s true or just be polished to protect someone else. The media becomes chaotic, as well as politics. I don’t understand, and I dislike to hear something disgusting about it.
Thank you, Hazel. Many people are torn between speaking up or staying quiet and hoping things change. But dust doesn’t move unless someone disturbs it. Sometimes the only way to slow what’s happening is to challenge it. If my words inspire even one person to act, and that person inspires another, then they have done their job.
One year ago former U.S. President Jimmy Carter passed away. We close this year with a celebration to his life. Recognizing his many accomplishments. Here is one, a promise he had made on the campaign trail before he was elected to office. That if he won the presidency, he would return to Elk City, Oklahoma and thank them. He upheld that promise, as well as many others he made. A man with true humility, honesty and principles. Sorely missed as an example to others.We honor a true a leader by remembering his life!
On March 24th, 1979, President Jimmy Carter returned to Oklahoma. He came to fulfill a campaign promise he had made during his first run for office. While campaigning, he passed through Elk City, Oklahoma, and vowed that if elected, he would return as President. True to his word, he came back to this small western Oklahoma town to connect with its residents.
By then, the memory of President Ford’s near-assassination and other threats against public figures lingered in the national consciousness. Carter was a peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia. He resonated with Oklahoma Citizens through his humility and shared values. This included his Democratic Party affiliation. First Lady Rosalynn Carter was accompanying him. Her warmth and grace complemented her husband. She left a positive impression on the locals.
At the time, Oklahoma’s Governor George Nigh was a celebrated figure in state politics. George Nigh was elected Lieutenant Governor more times than anyone else. He briefly served as Governor multiple times. This occurred when his predecessors resigned to take other offices. Despite some legal challenges about his eligibility, the State Supreme Court affirmed his ability to serve. He was now in his first full term as Governor. His presence at Carter’s visit added to the significance of the occasion.
The visit brought much excitement and preparation to Elk City, a town of about 12,000. The oil boom had not yet transformed the region. The high school’s field house was the largest venue available for the gathering. Elk City did not have an airport that accommodates Air Force One. Thus, the nearby Clinton-Sherman Airbase in Burns Flat, 15 miles east, was reactivated for the President’s arrival. A motorcade transported President Carter and his entourage to Elk City.
The event attracted widespread attention, with media outlets from a five-state area descending on the town. Governor Nigh, Oklahoma’s First Lady, U.S. Senators, Representatives, and many state officials joined the crowd. The field house overflowed with locals eager to witness history.
President Carter took the stage after introductions by various community leaders. His speech was marked by humility, sincerity, and a willingness to engage directly with the audience. During a question-and-answer session, a young girl boldly asked for a kiss. The President graciously obliged. This act endeared him further to the crowd.
Unlike many politicians who have returned to the comfort of Washington, D.C., President Carter chose to stay overnight at the home of Elk City Mayor Larry Wade. While he and Rosalynn rested, Elk City police officers securely guarded their limousine. It was stored in the fire department’s bay. The fire trucks were temporarily parked on the street. This allowed room for the vehicle. The bay doors were locked to make sure its secure.
The next morning, the Secret Service inspected and prepared the limousine for the journey back to the Clinton-Sherman Airbase. At 7:00 AM, President and Mrs. Carter were to be escorted by a motorcade that included local police and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. But the Carters had been invited to church. And to church they would go. The President’s and First Lady’s Church attendance was unannounced and brief. Two routes were used to guarantee security, though the President’s exact route remains uncertain. By 8:15 AM, all vehicles converged at the church. The Carters left church and went to the Clinton – Sherman Airfield, near Burns Flat. “Nothing is to schedule” one news reporter was noted as saying. And, for the Secret Service, they appreciated it wasn’t. The changes in the planned activity helped create enough of a distraction.
As Air Force One prepared for departure, President Carter and Rosalynn climbed the stairway. They turned to wave goodbye to the assembled crowd. Then, they boarded the plane. Within minutes, the jet’s engines roared to life. It ascended into the blue Oklahoma sky. The departure left behind a community that felt valued and appreciated.
Jimmy Carter’s visit to Elk City exemplified his commitment to keeping promises and connecting with everyday Americans. Years after making his pledge, he returned to this western Oklahoma town. This return reflected the integrity and personal touch that characterized his presidency.
This Story Originally Appeared On November 1st, 2025. On November 26th a shooting resulted in Washington D.C. It looks as if it resulted from pressure placed on an individual. A person identified from a sect or community. You can read the story connected to that event here. then consider the contents of this story and decide for yourself. It is not difficult to have predicted. More will come.
10–16 minutes
In every generation, the United States stands at a crossroads of its own making. From the outside, our country can look unstoppable. From the inside, we often feel the push and pull of competing values. These include hopes and fears. Beneath the headlines and politics are real people—neighbors, families, workers—trying to live meaningful lives. When pressure builds in a society, it rarely announces itself with fanfare. Instead, it creeps in quietly, showing up as worry, disconnection, or a sense that something familiar is shifting. This story isn’t about sensational headlines but about those quiet pressures—economic, social, and cultural—that can change a nation’s future.
Deportation, Prejudice, and the Risk of History Repeating
When governments treat specific communities as disposable, they create wounds. These often fester into something more dangerous. Today in the United States, many Hispanic families live under the shadow of deportation. They are sometimes sent to countries that are not their place of origin. Worse still, many are denied fair hearings or meaningful access to justice before being removed.
This pattern, though uniquely American in its details, has historical echoes elsewhere.
Lessons from Israel and Its Neighbors
Globally, people are voicing similar worries. Inflation, poverty, unemployment, and corruption rank highest worldwide. Local details differ, yet the underlying pressures on ordinary families are strikingly alike from one country to another.
In the Middle East, decades of restrictive policies have shaped the relationship between Israel and its neighbors. Palestinians have endured travel restrictions, settlement expansion, home demolitions, and barriers to full participation in civic life. While not every individual responds with violence, these systemic grievances have fueled a climate where radical groups gain traction. Street shootings, bombings, and attacks on innocent civilians are, in part, the tragic outcome of exclusion and marginalization.
When justice is denied, resentment grows. History shows us what happens when exclusion takes root. Will the U.S. repeat Israel’s mistakes?
The lesson is not that oppression always leads to terrorism. Yet, when large communities feel silenced, denied justice, or stripped of dignity, it becomes easier for extremism to take root.
The American Parallel
For many Hispanic communities in the U.S., there is growing concern that the same cycle begins here. Families who have lived in this country for years are uprooted without warning. Children who know no other homeland are deported to countries where they have no ties. Legal safeguards that should guarantee fairness are often bypassed through expedited removal or administrative shortcuts.
Deportation without dignity doesn’t just break families—it risks breaking society. Lessons from abroad show what happens when whole communities are silenced.
The danger is not only humanitarian—it is practical. Alienation breeds resentment. Resentment, left unchecked, can lead to anger that is so strong it erupts in harmful ways. If citizens and residents consistently feel betrayed by the very government meant to protect them, feelings of betrayal grow. Over time, these feelings lead to instability akin to that seen in other parts of the world.
A Cautionary Reflection
The United States faces a choice. It can double down on policies that treat Hispanic people as outsiders. Alternatively, it can recognize that fairness, dignity, and due process are not luxuries—they are stabilizers. By ensuring justice and compassion, the U.S. can protect both its people and its principles.
History reminds us that exclusion never produces lasting peace. Inclusion does. If America forgets this, it risks repeating a painful lesson already written across borders far from its own.
Exclusion never creates peace. Inclusion does. The United States must choose which future it wants.
As this report was being prepared on September 10, 2025. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a speaking event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. He was addressing an audience as part of his “American Comeback Tour.” When a gunman, described as wearing tactical gear, opened fire from a nearby building. The event was not just violent in its outcome. It’s now being discussed widely as an example of how political tensions, rising polarization. Public rhetoric can set the stage for tragedy. AP News+3Reuters+3People.com+3
This shooting stands as a stark reminder of what happens when communities feel threatened, unheard, or unfairly treated. When specific policies—like deportations without fair hearings, rhetoric that pits “us vs. them,” or laws that strip rights from people—are merged with public disdain, alienation can grow. As with Kirk’s death, violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It is often preceded by months or years of escalating division, distrust, and dehumanizing language toward some group.
If similar pressures continue—where people feel they are being denied justice. Or they will be forced into exile, or silenced—the risk is not only that isolated individuals will lash out. More of these attacks will spill into public spaces, become more common, and target more people. Charlie Kirk’s shooting is tragic and shocking. Still it also foreshadows a pattern we’ve seen before elsewhere: oppression + exclusion + inflammatory rhetoric = violence.
THE QUESTION NOW FACING THE UNITED STATES
The U.S. be trailing a path? Is government policy and public rhetoric pushing some communities to a breaking point? Exclusion and injustice be more than grievances, becoming catalysts for violence?
Israel offers a stark example. It shows what can happen when a nation attempts to dominate or control another people or region. Despite decades of military action, surveillance, imprisonment, and harsh policies, the country faces ongoing terrorist attacks. These actions occur within its own borders. History shows that no matter the tactics, attempts to subjugate or marginalize an entire population often breed resentment. Such approaches lead to cycles of violence rather than lasting security.
Recent polling reveals Americans’ top worries focus on daily life basics. These include the economy, healthcare costs, inflation, and Social Security. Economic anxiety has become the leading stress point—and understanding it is key to shaping effective public policy.
In the United States, millions of people belong to the LGBTQI community—transgender, gay, intersex, and beyond. If laws or court rulings increasingly target these groups with discriminatory restrictions or hardships, the effect won’t just be legal. It will erode their existing rights and impact them deeply on a human level. People who feel cornered, threatened, or stripped of dignity often turn to protest, activism, and self-defense. Families, friends, and allies of LGBTQI individuals will stand with them. History shows that when marginalized communities are pushed too far, their collective response grows stronger. They become more determined, whether through the courts, the ballot box, or public action.
There are case studies in why inclusion and fairness matter. Disenfranchisement can occur across many lines. These include ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, or economic status. Prevention starts with recognizing early warning signs. It involves pushing for fairness and empathy. Other groups and individuals will be targeted in this sweeping of Americans’ rights.
1. Immigrant and Refugee Communities Beyond Latin America
People from African nations, the Middle East, or Asia sometimes experience parallel challenges. They face deportation, limited due process, and suspicion tied to their nationality or religion. Policies that reduce refugee admissions, delay asylum processing, or tighten visa rules disproportionately affect them.
2. Religious Minorities
Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, and other smaller faith groups have seen spikes in harassment or targeted legislation. Surveillance, mosque or temple zoning battles, and hate crimes all increase when public rhetoric frames these groups as”others.”
3. Indigenous Peoples
Tribal communities continue to face legal battles over land, water, and sovereignty. Changes to federal protections or environmental rules can undermine their rights. This fuels deep distrust and potential standoffs (for example, Standing Rock and other pipeline protests).
4. People With Disabilities
Budget cuts or shifts in healthcare, accessibility regulations, or education funding can affect people with physical or cognitive disabilities. Without legal protections and enforcement, they risk losing access to accommodations and services they depend on.
5. Women and Reproductive Rights
If policies continue restricting reproductive healthcare and bodily autonomy, many women feel increasingly alienated. This is especially true for those in rural and low-income areas. Such feelings lead to organized protest. It also heightens tensions.
6. Workers in Precarious or Gig Jobs
With unions weakened and worker protections often rolled back, low-wage and gig-economy workers are also vulnerable to systemic neglect. Economic insecurity can create fertile ground for unrest, especially if merged with racial or immigration-related grievances.
On a hot summer’s day, if you stir any of these pots, something unhappy will happen. Similarly, if you keep someone locked out on a cold winter’s day, the outcome will be negative. It used to be the explosive reaction we referred to as Cabin-Fever when someone no longer can take the pressure. When so many groups are pushed to the point of not being capable to handle it. What happens? America already has more firearms than any country in the world. It shouldn’t take much research to realize that becoming Palestine-Israel would be easier than ever. It would also be more violent than people thought.
Exclusion never creates peace. Inclusion does. America must choose which future it wants.
There are Americans who are also to be considered part of the LGBTQI community. If laws or Supreme Court rulings turn against the transgender, Gay members, or Intersex community, these laws can cause hardships. Further restrictions can come into their lives. At some point, they and their families, friends, and supporters are going to find ways to defend themselves.
Yes — beyond the Hispanic and LGBTQI communities already discussed, there are several other groups. Experts and advocates often recognize these groups as vulnerable. These groups are often affected by shifts in policy, public sentiment, or legal rulings. Here’s a quick overview:
How Many Transgender People Have Been Mass Shooters?
This chart shows just how rare transgender or nonbinary mass shooters are in the U.S.—less than 1% of cases compared to an overwhelming majority by cisgender men. It’s a clear reminder that public narratives blaming LGBTQ+ people for mass violence are unsupported by facts.
How many trans shooters are there in real life?
Officially, the short answer: very, very few. Credible databases don’t systematically record gender identity. Still, the best available analyses show well under 1% of U.S. mass shooters have identified as transgender or nonbinary—i.e., only a handful of cases across many decades. Social Sciences and Humanities College+1
A few notes for context:
The Violence Project’s long-running database (public mass shootings, 4+ killed) shows hundreds of incidents since 1966. Researchers and fact-checks confirm that transgender perpetrators account for less than 1% of cases. This is in the low single digits in total. The Violence Project+1
News reporting that tries to tally specific incidents similarly finds just a few cases. It also cautions that many official datasets code by sex, not gender identity, which limits precision. Newsweek
Independent fact-checks conclude that claims of a “rise” in transgender mass shooters are unsupported. The vast majority of mass shooters are cisgender men. Reuters
Bottom line: Exact counts are hard to pin down because of data limitations. The evidence consistently shows that transgender people make up a vanishingly small share of U.S. mass shooters.
“Fewer than ten transgender athletes out of 510,000 NCAA players.
Yet, they’re at the center of a multi-million-dollar political storm.”
This makes sense—transgender people represent a very small part of the population, and their visibility often makes them targets. Out of more than 510,000 NCAA college athletes nationwide, it’s estimated that fewer than ten are openly transgender. Historically, families—including our grandparents and their grandparents—have coexisted with transgender individuals without controversy. Only in recent years have political attacks escalated, turning a once-private aspect of life into a public battleground. These attacks have generated hundreds of millions of dollars. Groups and politicians use transgender people as a wedge issue. They target individuals who are simply trying to live their lives.
What We Know (or Think We Know)
According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, about 300,000 youth aged 13–17 recognize as transgender in the U.S. Williams Institute
Of those, some studies suggest ~40.7% of transgender high school students play on at least one sports team. Applying that to the population estimate gives around 120,000+ transgender high school student-athletes Williams Institute
Nonetheless, when it comes to more specific breakdowns (e.g. how many play in women’s teams, or how many are in college/pro sports), the numbers are much smaller. For example, GLAAD reports that among ~510,000 NCAA college athletes, there are fewer than 10 known transgender athletesGLAAD
Key Takeaways & Limitations
Small in relative terms: Tens of thousands of transgender youth join in high school sports. Still, they are still a very tiny fraction of all athletes.
Very few at higher levels: At the college or professional levels, the known, openly transgender athletes are very rare (under 10 in the NCAA among all those athletes, per recent reports) GLAAD+1
Data gaps: Many sports associations don’t track gender identity carefully. Privacy concerns, inconsistent reporting, and changing eligibility rules make precise numbers hard to nail down.
Exclusion never creates peace. Inclusion does. The United States must choose which future it wants.
Yet even in times of strain, The United States of America greatest strength has always been its capacity to self-correct. Communities do not simply absorb pressure—they also adapt, innovate, and rise to meet challenges. We have the chance now to choose empathy over division, solutions over rhetoric, and inclusion over exclusion. If we remember that the country’s heart beats strongest when its people are treated with fairness and dignity. Then the same forces that threaten to divide us can also become the sparks that unite us. This is not just a warning—it’s an invitation to hope.
This content was originally intended to be posted on September 11, 2025. Due to unfolding events at that time, its publication was postponed until November 1, 2025. The research began weeks before events on September 10, 2025 in Utah. If extra events have occurred since then, this report reflects the level of concern. It highlights the growing sense of unease emerging across the United States.
About the Author:
Benjamin Groff is a former police officer and radio news anchor. He has hosted programs for CNN and ABC News affiliates in Colorado and Wyoming. His career in law enforcement began in 1980 and lasted more than two decades. This gave him firsthand insight into the criminal mind and public safety. Moreover, it provided him with an understanding of the human stories that often go untold. His writing draws on these experiences, blending street-level truth with a journalist’s eye for the bigger picture.
By Benjamin H. Groff II | Truth Endures / The Story Teller
3–5 minutes
A Decade After Obergefell
Will You Lose Your Rights To Marry Who You Love?
Ten years after the Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, America finds itself again revisiting questions many thought were settled.
The Court’s ruling in 2015 declared that marriage, in all its forms, is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. This includes guarantees of liberty and equal protection. As new petitions rise, the conversation has returned to the surface. Shifting public attitudes also contribute to this discussion. Who holds authority over marriage — the individual, the state, or the Constitution itself?
The Current Question Before the Court
A pending petition related to former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has reignited national attention. Her case asks whether local officials refuse to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. It also questions whether Obergefell overstepped by forcing states to recognize marriages they once prohibited.
The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case. Still, its presence on the docket is enough to open old wounds. It also raises new questions. Some legal analysts believe the current Court will not directly overturn Obergefell. Yet, it will narrow its reach through religious-liberty rulings. It also does so through state-level exceptions. Others assert that stability — not upheaval — best serves the nation and the families already bound under its promise.
Two Visions of Marriage and Rights
One side views marriage equality as part of America’s long arc toward inclusion. They view it as a civil institution that, once granted, should not be rescinded. They see equality before the law as non-negotiable. They fear that revisiting the issue will fragment the nation’s sense of fairness.
The other side argues that Obergefell disrupted centuries of state authority. It affected religious conscience. They believe that restoring local decision-making better reflects democratic process. They point to the tension between personal faith convictions and federal mandates as a conflict yet unresolved.
Between those poles lies a broad middle. These are citizens who do not agree on doctrine. They understand that marriage, whether between a man and woman or same-sex partners, carries profound human meaning. Many simply wish to preserve stability, protect liberty, and allow space for faith and freedom to coexist.
Faith, Law, and Living Together
Scripture has long influenced how societies view marriage. For some, biblical passages define its structure and purpose; for others, they offer moral insight without prescribing civil law. The tension between religious belief and constitutional law is not new. This tension echoes past debates over interracial marriage, divorce, and women’s rights.
In every era, society has had to ask two questions. What happens when faith and law collide? How do we live together without tearing the fabric of our community apart?
Why the Debate Still Matters
Even if the Court declines to hear new challenges, more than two dozen states have laws banning same-sex marriage. These laws are dormant on their books. If Obergefell were ever overturned or weakened, those statutes will return overnight, affecting benefits, inheritance, adoption, and family recognition.
At the same time, many Americans share a common belief. Conservatives and liberals alike think the government shouldn’t dictate the deepest personal choices of its citizens. This belief runs deep in the country’s DNA. – Barred from Hospital Rooms – Declined Visits By Family Funerals – Loss of Shared Property.
A Time for Reflection, Not Division
It is that America is less divided on love than on language. Many citizens who believe marriage is sacred still believe in equal dignity; many who support equality still respect faith’s voice.
The challenge before the nation is to find balance. This also is a challenge for the Supreme Court. It involves preserving both religious liberty and individual freedom. This must be done without sacrificing the dignity of either.
Marriage remains one of the few institutions that bridges our private and public lives. It does this whether one calls it a covenant before God or a contract under law. The real question is not who can marry. It is whether we can continue to respect those who see it differently. Is it a divine institution? One which a person be married and divorced five times, as long as it is to the opposite sex. Or, is it a civil contract between two people which protects their lives, property and future? Capable of being entered into by any two people.
Closing Thought
History rarely moves backward. Nonetheless, it does pause to consider and to recalibrate. It also reminds us that liberty requires both conviction and compassion. As this conversation unfolds, we argue less to win and more to understand.
Antifa, short for “anti-fascist,” is a decentralized, far-left political movement that opposes fascism, racism, and other forms of far-right extremism.
It is not a single, unified organization with a national leader or headquarters. Rather, it is a loose network of autonomous local groups and individuals. They share a common ideology.
History
European origins: Modern anti-fascist movements have historical roots in early 20th-century Europe. Groups like Germany’s Antifaschistische Aktion fought against rising fascism and Nazism in the 1920s and 1930s.
American development: In the United States, groups like the Anti-Racist Action (ARA) influenced the modern movement in the 1980s. They confronted Neo-Nazi skinheads at punk rock concerts.
Resurgence: Antifa gained significant public attention and saw a revival in activity after the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This was especially true during clashes with far-right groups. These occurred at events like the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Beliefs and ideology
Anti-authoritarianism: Adherents subscribe to a range of left-wing views. These include anarchism, socialism, and communism. They hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist positions.
Direct action: The movement prioritizes direct action over electoral politics. They believe it is necessary to disrupt what they see as hateful and oppressive activities. These disruptions are crucial before such activities can grow.
Confrontation: Supporters believe that hate speech is not free speech and advocate for the active suppression of fascist organizing efforts.
Tactics
Antifa tactics range from nonviolent to militant and vary widely among autonomous groups.
Nonviolent techniques: These include community organizing, publicizing the activities of far-right groups (“doxing”), and distributing flyers.
Militant techniques: Some adherents use confrontational tactics, including physical violence and property damage, which critics condemn as counterproductive and dangerous.
“Black bloc”: During protests, some activists engage in “black bloc” tactics. They dress in all black with their faces covered. This is done to keep anonymity and solidarity.
Controversy and criticism
Terrorist label: For several years, President Donald Trump has said he would label Antifa as a terrorist organization. As recently as September 2025, he reiterated this stance. Still, legal and civil rights experts have stated such a designation would be unconstitutional. They argue it is challenging to apply to a decentralized movement rather than a structured group. Former FBI Director Christopher Wray has also described it as an ideology rather than an organization.
Use of violence: Antifa’s use of violence has been condemned by both Republican and Democratic politicians. Some critics draw false equivalencies between Antifa violence and far-right extremist violence.
Misinformation: The movement has often been the topic of persistent disinformation campaigns. Right-wing groups and social media accounts promote false rumors and hoaxes about its activities.
Right now in U.S. politics, “Antifa” is not a formal organization. Instead, it is a loosely applied label meaning “anti-fascist.” It refers to people who oppose far-right extremism. In recent years, some political figures have used the term as a catch-all. Donald Trump is included among those who use it this way. They apply it to anyone who protests or opposes their policies. That means the word is often used more as a political weapon than a precise description.
If someone opposes the GOP or criticizes Trump’s policies, that alone does not make them “Antifa.” Certain media outlets or political figures call them that. It’s a rhetorical strategy to stigmatize opposition. This labeling is not a reflection of an actual membership or affiliation. Historically, in the U.S., dissent against a party or president has always existed without being automatically labeled as extremist.
So, in short: at the “current rate” of framing, you are called Antifa if you oppose Trump. Nonetheless, that’s a label applied by others. It is not an actual classification or legal designation. It’s essential to recognize the difference between rhetoric and reality.
Midnight came with a storm. The people surged into the square, led not by weapons, but by sheer will. They banged pots, rang bells, and carried torches. Harper stood at the front, her vest pockets heavy with rocks, ready for the only weapon she trusted—humiliation over bloodshed.
The guards pushed ahead, but when the first stone struck a helmet, ringing like a bell, the crowd roared. Pebbles, words, laughter—it all became a wall the Council couldn’t breach. The guards faltered. For the first time, they looked uncertain. Some even turned and fled.
By dawn, Haven’s Reach was not free—but it was different. The Council still ruled, but the people had tasted their own power. Harper knew the road ahead would be long. She also knew this: fear never again be the island’s only ruler.
By the time autumn winds swept across the island, Brant Harrow’s “First Rules” had been etched into daily life. They weren’t written on parchment or stone, but repeated so often that they became second nature.
“No theft, no violence, no waste, no words outside the Council.”
At first, the people complied out of respect. Later, they complied out of habit. And slowly, they began to comply out of fear.
It started small. A fisherman’s wife was overheard criticizing the Council for rationing nets unfairly. Days later, her family’s hut was mysteriously stripped of its lantern oil. Her husband’s catch was rejected at the communal market. There was no official punishment or public decree. It was just a quiet reminder of who held sway.
Families learned to whisper in the dark, if they whispered at all. Children were warned not to repeat what their parents said at home. Laughter around the fire grew more careful, guarded, as though shadows themselves carried ears.
Yet not all were cowed. A young teacher named Elara began meeting secretly with her students in the caves near the shoreline. She reminded them of the island’s first days. During those times, the people worked freely together. Voices rang out with no fear of reprisal. She called it
“The Memory.”
“Don’t let them take The Memory from you,”
She urged.
“Because when the memory dies, so do we.”
Above them, in the Council chamber, Brant Harrow and his circle drew lines on a map of the island. They were dividing it into districts.
“Control the land,”
He muttered,
“And we control the people.”
Unseen and unspoken, the first embers of resistance flickered in Haven’s Reach.
Instead of roaming the country as a military force, it can return to its roots. It should focus on protecting communities, fighting disasters, and standing ready at home. This was how it was initially intended.
Regular Role of the National Guard
Traditionally, the National Guard is a reserve part of the U.S. Armed Forces with a dual state and federal mission. Its primary duties include:
Disaster response: helping with hurricanes, floods, wildfires, tornadoes, and other natural disasters.
Civil support: assisting with search and rescue, law enforcement support, and humanitarian aid.
Community protection: maintaining order during emergencies like riots or public unrest (when activated by a governor).
Military readiness: training to serve as backup for overseas missions if federally activated.
Current Use vs. Regular Use
In recent years, the Guard has been used much more often as a deployable military force nationwide and abroad. Instead of focusing mainly on disaster relief and state emergencies, units have often been:
Sent overseas for long deployments (Iraq, Afghanistan, and other global missions).
Deployed domestically for extended periods to reinforce border security.
Called into action for large-scale protests or high-profile events (sometimes more as a security force than a disaster-relief one).
This “running about the country” role shows the impact of federal activation. It often overrides the state-level, community-first role the Guard was created for.
If They Were Not Used in This Way
If the Guard were not being tasked so heavily with nationwide or military-style deployments, they would be more focused on:
Local readiness involves staying in their communities and training for natural disasters and emergency responses.
Rapid-response teams: being first on the ground for wildfires, floods, and major storms.
Community integration: building stronger ties with local emergency agencies, fire, police, and hospitals.
Relief from strain: soldiers wouldn’t be stretched between frequent national missions and their civilian lives (jobs, families).
In short, without the current expanded use, the Guard would essentially serve as a state-based safety net. It would not work as a roaming military or quasi-police force.
Back to Basics: Rethinking the Role of the National Guard
The National Guard has long been the “citizen-soldier” force of the United States, built to serve both State and country. In recent decades, its role has changed. It has drifted toward functioning as a national military extension. It is constantly deployed across the country and overseas. What if, instead, the Guard returned to its roots?
1. Local First: Anchored in Communities
At its best, the Guard is a local safety net. Guardsmen live, work, and raise families in the same communities they serve. Units should primarily focus on state-based missions. This focus ensures the Guard would be ready to respond within hours to natural disasters. They would also be prepared for civil emergencies or infrastructure crises. Imagine a Guard that spends more time training with local fire departments, EMTs, and hospitals than on federal deployments.
2. Disaster Response as the Core Mission
Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, wildfires—these are the events that disrupt American lives far more often than foreign conflict. A back-to-basics Guard would prioritize:
Maintaining rapid-response disaster teams in every State.
Stockpiling equipment is tailored for local threats. This includes boats in flood zones, fire suppression gear in the West, and snow mobility in the North.
Conducting community disaster drills ensures that both citizens and Guardsmen are equally prepared.
Units would no longer be pulled away for distant missions. They would focus on being the first and best resource for emergencies at home.
3. Training for Peace, Not Just War
Right now, Guard training often mirrors active-duty military requirements, preparing for combat tours. In a reset model, training would also emphasize:
Cybersecurity units to defend state and municipal systems.
Community relations, so Guardsmen stay trusted neighbors rather than distant enforcers.
This would shift the Guard’s culture back toward being helpers before fighters.
4. Federal Role: Truly Exceptional, Not Routine
Of course, the Guard must stay capable of federal service in extreme situations—war, national catastrophe, or extraordinary need. Yet, deployments abroad or cross-country should be rare exceptions, not the default. By limiting federalization, Guardsmen can balance their civilian careers and military service, reducing burnout and attrition.
5. Why It Matters
A back-to-basics Guard would mean fewer fatigued families. It would result in stronger ties to local communities. This approach ensures a quicker, more reliable response when disaster strikes. America’s Guard would not be stretched thin across the globe. It would once again stand where it was meant to: in the towns and states it calls home.
What if you read notices in your local news that read?
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION
Governor Announces New “Back to Basics” Model for the National Guard
Kansas, June 32, 1901 — Governor Sample, today, announced a renewed vision for the role of the National Guard. He prioritized disaster response, community protection, and local readiness. These take precedence over routine national or overseas deployments.
“For too long, our Guard has been stretched thin. They have been asked to serve as a roaming military force. Their greatest value lies right here at home,” said Governor Sample. “This back-to-basics approach ensures readiness. When disaster strikes—whether it’s a wildfire, flood, storm, or cyberattack—the Guard will be here for the people of Kansas.”
The new model emphasizes:
Local Focus: Units stay in-state and train alongside fire, police, and emergency services.
Disaster Response Core: Stockpiles of equipment tailored to regional needs (boats, fire suppression, snowmobiles).
Civil Support: Enhanced training in medical aid, engineering, and cybersecurity.
Federal Deployment Limits: Guard units will be reserved for exceptional national missions, not routine overseas tours.
“Our citizen-soldiers are not only protectors—they are neighbors, coworkers, and family members,” The Governor added.
“By keeping them rooted in our communities, we strengthen both readiness and trust.”
The announcement received praise from emergency officials. Guard families also praised it. They say the plan reduces the strain on soldiers. These soldiers balance military duties with civilian life.
“This will make the Guard what it was always meant to be—a safety net for the people. It was not meant to be a shadow army,” said Major General Example, Adjutant General of the Kansas National Guard.
OR –
National Guard to Refocus on Community, Disaster Relief Under New State Plan
Pingpong, CA. Feb.30th, 1901 — The National Guard in California will soon change their focus. They will be trading extended deployments and national security missions for a renewed focus closer to home. In a press conference yesterday, Governor Pixel outlined a “back-to-basics” approach. This approach emphasizes disaster response, community support, and local readiness as the Guard’s primary mission.
The plan follows many years of frequent Guard call-ups across the country. These call-ups range from border security and protest response to overseas rotations. Critics have long argued these duties stretch citizen-soldiers too thin, pulling them away from their families, jobs, and communities.
Under the new model, Guard units would focus on in-state needs, like wildfire suppression, flood response, and medical assistance. Specialized equipment would be stockpiled based on regional threats. Training would shift toward engineering, emergency medicine, and cybersecurity. The focus would be less on combat deployments. Federal missions wouldn’t disappear, but would be reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.”
“This change will transform the Guard. It will achieve its true purpose,” said Major General Mission, Adjutant General of the California National Guard. “It will become a force that’s ready to protect and serve right where its soldiers live.”
Community leaders praised the proposal, noting the Guard’s quick local response during past disasters. Families of Guardsmen also welcomed the change, saying the plan reduces the strain of juggling civilian and military life.
The proposal has yet to be tested. It signals a shift in priorities. The Guard is rooted not in constant deployments. Its foundation lies in its mission as a local safety net for the people of California.
Returning the Guard to its original purpose –
📌 Top 3 Changes in the Guard’s Role
1. Local First
Guard units will stay primarily in-state, training with fire, police, and emergency services for quicker disaster response.
2. Disaster Response Core
Specialized equipment stockpiles—boats, wildfire gear, snowmobiles—tailored to each region will be prioritized over combat readiness.
3. Federal Deployment Limits
Units will only be sent on national or overseas missions for extraordinary emergencies, not as a routine practice.
That day will probably never come for a great many who read this report. For others who do, it serves as a goal. It becomes something to aim for when trying to look to a brighter future.
When Politics Turns Deadly: What Recent Shootings Reveals About America’s Pressures
Political Violence in the U.S.: A Historical Lens Political Pressure Pots That Are Exploding
On September 10, 2025, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University. The attack shocked audiences nationwide and revived a painful question: Is political violence becoming more common in the United States? While the details of this case continue to unfold, history offers context. The Kirk shooting is tragic, but it’s not unprecedented—political assassinations and attacks have occurred before. Understanding that history can help us prevent future violence.
Political Violence in the U.S.: Then and Now
Throughout U.S. history, public figures have been targeted for their beliefs, activism, or positions of power. These events—though rare—often show deep social, political, or cultural tensions. Below is a timeline of key moments, followed by how they compare to today.
Timeline of Notable U.S. Political Murders/Assassinations
Year / Victim / Role / Context / Motive
On April 14, 1865, Abraham Lincoln, the U.S. President, was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a Confederate sympathizer.
1901 William McKinley, U.S. President, was killed by anarchist Leon Czolgosz.
1935 Huey Long, U.S. Senator / LA Governor, was shot by Carl Weiss amid political turmoil in Louisiana.
1963 Medgar Evers, a Civil Rights Activist, was shot outside his home for his activism in Mississippi.
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated while riding in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the crime. He was shot and killed by Jack Ruby before standing trial. The official record names Oswald as the lone gunman. The motive has remained an issue of widespread debate and speculation for decades.
1965 Malcolm X, a Civil Rights Leader, was killed during a public speech in Harlem.
1968 Robert F. Kennedy, the Presidential Candidate, was shot after a campaign rally in Los Angeles.
On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.—American Baptist minister, civil rights leader, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate—was assassinated. He was standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee when it happened. James Earl Ray, an escaped convict, was arrested for the murder two months later and later pleaded guilty. Ray claimed he was part of a larger conspiracy. He later tried to recant his confession. Nonetheless, the official record names him as the assassin. The motive remains the topic of debate. King led the civil rights movement. He opposed systemic racism. These actions made him a frequent target of threats and hostility.
1969–70s Various bombings & shootings Political & protest-related Weather Underground, far-right and far-left extremist groups.
2011 Gabrielle Giffords (survived), U.S. Representative, was shot at a constituent event in Arizona; six others were killed.
High profile, targeted instances of political violence
Charlie Kirk shooting*
Killed
Orem, Utah
Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at an event on the campus of Utah Valley University. Kirk was a well-known conservative activist who founded Turning Point USA.
Sept. 2025
*Officials have not confirmed that the shooting was politically motivated.
*Officials have not confirmed that the shooting was politically motivated.
Minnesota lawmaker shootings
2 killed, 2 injured
Minneapolis, Minnesota
A gunman targeted several Minnesota election officials. He killed Minnesota House of Representatives member Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman in their home. State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife Yvette Hoffman were shot and injured in their home.
June 2025
Minnesota lawmaker shootings
Two killed, two injured
Minneapolis, Minnesota
A gunman targeted several Minnesota election officials. He killed Minnesota House of Representatives member Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman in their home. State Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette Hoffman were shot and injured in their home.
June 2025
Minnesota lawmaker shootings
Two killed, two injured
Minneapolis, Minnesota
A gunman targeted several Minnesota election officials. He killed Minnesota House of Representatives member Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman in their home. State Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette Hoffman were shot and injured in their home.
June 2025
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home arson
No injuries
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Governor’s Residence was set on fire while Shapiro and his family slept inside.
April 2025
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home arson
No injuries
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Governor’s Residence was set on fire while Shapiro and his family slept inside.
2025 Charlie Kirk, Conservative Activist, was shot while speaking at Utah Valley University; investigation ongoing.
Timeline of Notable Political Murders And Attacks In The U.S.(1865-2025)
Patterns and Parallels
Public Rhetoric Matters: In nearly every case, rhetoric and polarization preceded the violence.
Violence Rarely Comes From Nowhere: These events are almost always linked to broader grievances, social tensions, or extremist ideologies.
Modern Amplifiers: Today’s social media, 24/7 news, and intense partisanship can supercharge grievances faster than in past eras.
Lessons for Today
The Kirk shooting reflects how quickly divisions can escalate. This happens when marginalized or politically active groups feel threatened. It also occurs when public discourse frames opponents as existential enemies. Left unchecked, the result can spill over from online posts and protests into public spaces and deadly attacks.
History shows that violence rarely ends the debate—it deepens it. The antidote is not silence but inclusion, dialogue, and guardrails on how we treat one another, even when we disagree.
Closing Thoughts
The U.S. is not doomed to repeat its worst moments, but it does need to recognize them. Political violence grows where alienation and fear fester. The Charlie Kirk tragedy, like earlier assassinations, should not only shock but also instruct. By confronting polarization and reinforcing democratic norms, communities can prevent these cycles from repeating.
About the Author:
Benjamin Groff is a former police officer and radio news anchor. He has hosted programs for CNN and ABC News affiliates in Colorado and Wyoming. His career in law enforcement began in 1980 and lasted more than two decades. This gave him firsthand insight into the criminal mind and public safety. Moreover, it provided him with an understanding of the human stories that often go untold. His writing draws on these experiences, blending street-level truth with a journalist’s eye for the bigger picture.
Imagine waking up one day and discovering that half the population no longer has a voice in governance. It seems unimaginable. But, by exploring this dystopian scenario, we gain a clearer understanding. Women’s full participation is vital to a healthy democracy.
1. Democracy at Risk: Representation Crumbles
Eliminating women’s voting rights would erode democratic legitimacy. According to Pew Research, no nation has fully rescinded women’s suffrage after granting it. Afghanistan is a rare case. Instability there led to temporary rollbacks of voting rights for women (1).
Political representation would skew drastically without the inclusion of women. This would undermine policies related to education, healthcare, family leave, and equity. These are issues where women often drive progress (2). Removing half the electorate opens the door to unbalanced, unaccountable leadership that ignores countless lived experiences.
2. Social and Economic Inequities Would Widen
The ripple effect of eliminating women’s voting rights would be immediate and profound:
Policy Backslides: In response to women’s demands, early 20th-century legislation emerged. Acts like the Sheppard-Towner Act (maternity care), the Women’s Bureau, and the Cable Act were major milestones. They were built on women’s political influence (3). Lose voting rights, and such gains evaporate.
Stalled Progress for Women of Color: Even after the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, women of color still faced systemic barriers. Voting was made difficult for them. These barriers persisted in many forms. This was especially true for Black, Native, Latinx, and Asian Americans. These barriers weren’t fully lifted until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (4). Removing voting rights today would re-introduce even greater marginalization.
3. The 19th Amendment Is Not a Safety Net
The 19th Amendment constitutionally affirms women’s right to vote. Changing that would need another amendment. This presents an extraordinarily high legal and political hurdle. Legal scholars and court precedents affirm its permanence (5).
Still, we must stay vigilant. Recent developments remind us that the spirit of equality is always at risk. These include potential threats to voting access via legislation like the SAVE Act. There is also rhetoric from political figures undermining democratic foundations. (6).
Final Thought
Losing the right to vote wouldn’t be just a policy shift—it’d be a moral and societal unraveling. Not only would women’s voices vanish from ballots, but the very foundations of inclusive democracy would start to crumble. That’s why protecting voting rights isn’t optional—it’s essential.
Chicago is often spotlighted for its crime statistics. Yet, Gary, Indiana consistently ranks higher in many key crime metrics. This is true even when compared on a per-capita basis.
Chicago often dominates headlines for crime. Yet, FBI data and neighborhood crime indexes reveal a different story. Residents in Gary, Indiana, face significantly higher per-capita risks of violent and property crimes. According to NeighborhoodScout, Gary’s violent crime rate stands at roughly 1,180 per 100,000 residents—nearly double Chicago’s rate of 673.5.
President Trump reportedly plans to send National Guard troops to Chicago to tackle crime. If crime is really the concern, those service members should go just across the border to Gary. Decades of statistics show even higher rates staring them in the face. This report includes the data and sources to prove it. So the real question is: why isn’t the Guard going to Indiana? Maybe they know they can’t go back there.
Gary, Indiana — Higher Crime Rates Than Chicago
Violent crime in Gary is approximately 11.8 per 1,000 residents, or 1,180 per 100,000, significantly above national averages and surpassing Chicago’s violent crime rate of 673.5 per 100,000.ReolinkNiche
Your odds of being a victim of violent crime in Gary are about 1 in 112. This is compared to Chicago’s overall violent crime rate.NeighborhoodScout
Property crimes are also markedly higher: a 1 in 35 chance in Gary versus substantially lower in Chicago.NeighborhoodScout
Why Gary Stands Out
Gary’s elevated crime levels have been well-documented over the years. These range from a ‘1993 Murder Capital’ billboard warning to recent statistics. Recent data shows some of the highest violence and theft rates in the nation.The TraceMacrotrends Despite improvements in some categories, Gary remains one of Indiana’s most dangerous cities. It often exceeds Chicago in both violent and property crime rates.
Quick Comparison
City
Violent Crime (per 100,000)
Property Crime Odds
Gary, IN
~1,180
1 in 35 victims
Chicago, IL
673.5
Lower than Gary’s rate
There Is More To Review
Yes—Gary, Indiana, a smaller city just southeast of Chicago, has higher crime rates than Chicago on a per-capita level. Though Chicago may grab more headlines, Gary’s challenges with both violent and property crime are even more severe.
1. Gary, IN — Highest Crime in Indiana
Violent Crime Rate: Gary records approximately 11.8 incidents per 1,000 residents, making it the highest violent crime rate in the state Reolink+1.
Property Crime Chance: On an individual level, the chance of being a victim in Gary is 1 in 112 for violent crime. The odds are 1 in 35 for property crime. NeighborhoodScout.
Daily Crime Risk: Overall, you face a 1 in 27 chance per year of becoming a crime victim in Gary. Check more on Areavibes.
Safety Map Insights: Neighborhood safety varies widely. In central areas, residents face up to a 1 in 67 chance of violent crime. In safer southwestern zones, that drops to 1 in 137Reddit.
Citywide Crime Index: Gary’s total crime rate runs at about 59.75 incidents per 1,000 residents, compared to roughly 33.37 nationallynextdoor.com.
Recent Trends: Encouragingly, Gary’s Police Department reported a notable drop in violent crime and fatal traffic accidents in 2024. They also noted increased proactive patrols in Gary, Indiana.
2. Chicago, IL — Larger Scale, Lower Per-Capita Risk
Comparative Crime Index (Gary vs. Chicago):
Violent Crime: Chicago reports about 21% more violent crime overall. Still, because of its much higher population, the individual risk remains lower than in Gary BestPlaces.
Property Crime: Chicago’s rate is approximately 30% lower than Gary’s BestPlaces.
Detailed Numbers (NeighborhoodScout): The chance of being a victim of violent crime in Chicago is about 1 in 167. In Gary, it is 1 in 112. Property crime risk in Chicago is about 1 in 29, slightly better than Gary’s 1 in 35NeighborhoodScoutAreavibes.
3. Lake County Overview
Lake County averages around 395 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. This figure is slightly higher than national averages near 360 per 100,000. Axios+1Wikipedia+1.
Economic Impact: Crime-related costs, including emotional and tangible losses, are significant across the county.
Quick Comparison Table
Location
Violent Crime Risk
Property Crime Risk
Notes
Gary, IN
1 in 112 (high risk)
1 in 35 (high risk)
Among “most dangerous” cities in Indiana
Chicago, IL
Lower individual risk
Slightly lower than Gary
Larger scale but safer per capita
Lake County, IN
Slightly above average
Mixed
Crime concentrated in urban pockets like Gary
Summary
Gary, Indiana, has significantly higher violent and property crime rates—both per-capita—than Chicago. Despite Chicago’s national notoriety, individuals face greater personal risk in Gary.
Lake County overall carries elevated crime levels, but the burden is not uniform—it’s concentrated in areas like Gary.
Positive note: There are signs of progress, especially in Gary. Proactive policing has reduced violent crime. It has also improved safety initiatives.
Benjamin Groff is a former police officer and radio news anchor. He has hosted programs for CNN and ABC News affiliates in Colorado and Wyoming. His career in law enforcement began in 1980 and lasted more than two decades. This gave him firsthand insight into the criminal mind and public safety. Moreover, it provided him with an understanding of the human stories that often go untold. His writing draws on these experiences, blending street-level truth with a journalist’s eye for the bigger picture.
Will Americans loose more Civil Rights With Republicans In control? Mike Lee, Trump, and others are pushing the Project 2025 Playbook. It sure looks like the Constitution’s articles are under threat and today’s GOP will lead to its undoing.
THE RESPONSE
You’ve raised a critical concern. The answer is: yes. Under a Republican administration, there is influence exerted through tools like Project 2025. Many observers, civil‑rights organizations, and news outlets warn of significant threats to civil liberties and democratic norms.
What Is Project 2025?
Project 2025 is a policy blueprint authored by The Heritage Foundation. Contributions from former Trump staffers are included. It advocates for a sweeping restructuring of the executive branch. The plan expands presidential control over key agencies like the DOJ, FBI, DHS, and Department of Education. It seeks to install ideologically vetted loyalists, dismantle agency independence, and extend power across the executive branch.(1)
Critics label it an authoritarian and Christian-nationalist roadmap. It threatens civil rights protections. It also endangers democratic checks and balances and the rule of law.(2)
Key Threats to Civil Rights
Dismantling DEIA and Affirmative Action Safeguards
Executive Orders signed in January 2025 have abolished government DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility) initiatives, rescinded affirmative action mandates (e.g., EO 11246), and set in motion mass firings of employees affiliated with DEIA roles.(3)
Eroding Oversight of Discrimination
Project 2025 proposes ending the collection of race and gender data by the EEOC. This decision would cripple the government’s ability to detect and tackle employment discrimination. (4)
Weakening Voting Rights and Census Equity
The plan promotes a citizenship question on the census, which will suppress representation and resources for immigrant and minority communities. It also proposes limiting the DOJs role in election protection. Additionally, it suggests reforms to the FEC that would shift power to politically appointed commissioners.(4a)
Suppressing LGBTQ+, Black, Immigrant, and Other Communities’ Protections
Policies aim to curtail reproductive freedoms, strip LGBTQ rights, and dismantle educational protections—particularly in schools and public institutions. (5)
Consolidating Executive Power and Undermining the Courts
Project 2025 advocates for weakening independent oversight, firing Inspectors General, and enforcing loyalty tests—subverting professional integrity and rule of law.(6)
Shifting Federal Civil Rights Enforcement
Politicizing Justice Leadership
Appointments like that of Pam Bondi raise concerns about fairness in civil and voting rights enforcement. Their lack of independence from political influence is particularly worrisome.(7)
Broader Repercussions Reported by News Sources
Project 2025 has already sparked real-world impacts, like:
Mississippi implementing stricter abortion bans, voting restrictions, education rollbacks, and book censorship—reflecting Project 2025’s influence.(8)
Cancellation of Latino cultural festivals due to intensified ICE enforcement, demonstrating an atmosphere of fear in immigrant communities.(9)
A marked rollback on civil rights enforcement and protections in education and beyond. (9a)
In Summary
There is clear, mounting evidence.Republicans are in positions of control. They are involved in Project 2025. This involvement poses an existential threat to several pillars of civil rights. Republicans are in positions of control. Project 2025 is a concern. There is a threat to several pillars of civil rights. This threat includes dismantling DEI programs. It involves undermining federal oversight. Additionally, it consolidates executive power and targets marginalized communities across voting, education, employment, and beyond.
What You Can Do
Support and amplify the work of:
Civil rights organizations: ACLU, NAACP LDF, Urban League—many are actively litigating (e.g., National Urban League v. Trump contesting anti-DEIA executive orders) (10).
Voting and immigrant rights groups tracking suppression and census issues.
Local advocacy and grassroots movements fostering solidarity and resistance.
When I first wrote this piece during election season, I thought it spoke to a particular moment. But the truth has a way of staying relevant. Looking around today, it feels just as necessary—maybe even more so.
1–2 minutes
THE TRUTH IS THE HARDEST THING TO LOOK AT AND ACCEPT
There was a time in American politics. Back then, slinging mud was considered the lowest, most dishonorable act a candidate would commit. Those who spread lies were branded untrustworthy. Decent people would never cast a vote for them. Back then, communities had a different rhythm. You knew your neighbors. You checked on the widow down the street. You went out of your way to support local businesses because of family ties. Courtesy was second nature. You didn’t blare your horn because someone hesitated at a stop sign. You didn’t sneer at people who looked different from you. When you traveled to another town for a ballgame, you were respectful. You treated their facilities with the same respect you expected for your own.
Politics, too, carried that sense of respect. When someone won an election—whether at the local, state, or national level—it wasn’t the end of the world. It simply meant they had earned the right to represent their community for a set term. Neighbors didn’t conspire to punish one another for “voting the wrong way.” They did not claim elections were fraudulent just because their candidate lost. They accepted the truth, even when it was difficult, because truth was what held the fabric of the community together.
What’s striking is that no one sought to destroy the lives of those who disagreed with them. Debate can be sharp, but it stopped short of hatred. People understood that democracy required trust. It required trust in the process. It required trust in one another. It also required trust that truth—no matter how uncomfortable—would endure. That same truth remains today. Still, it asks something of us. It requires the courage to look it in the eye. We must accept it and live by it.
If Social Security were eliminated, the effects would be wide-ranging. It would touch nearly every part of American life. This is especially true for retirees, people with disabilities, and survivors of deceased workers. Here’s how it would unfold:
1. Immediate Loss of Income for Millions
Social Security now provides monthly benefits to over 70 million Americans, including retirees, disabled individuals, and surviving spouses or children. Without it, many of these households would lose their main or only source of income overnight.
Retirees: Many older Americans rely on Social Security for the bulk of their income—especially those without significant savings or pensions.
Survivors: Widows, widowers, and children who now get survivor benefits would lose critical support.
Disabled workers: People incapable of work due to disability would lose a major safety net.
2. Surge in Poverty Rates
Before Social Security, poverty among the elderly was extremely high—estimates put it at around 35–50%. The program cut that rate dramatically. Without it, poverty rates among older Americans will return to pre-1935 levels.
3. Strain on Families and Local Communities
The financial burden of caring for elderly or disabled relatives would shift heavily to families. Those without family support be forced into underfunded state programs or charitable care.
Families need to delay retirement, take on extra jobs, or house multiple generations under one roof.
Local charities and churches would see rising demand for basic necessities like food and shelter.
4. Ripple Effects on the Economy
Social Security benefits aren’t just “checks”—they fuel spending in local economies. Without those payments:
Rural and small-town economies (which often have higher percentages of retirees) see sharp declines in consumer spending.
Certain industries—especially healthcare, retail, and housing—would feel immediate impacts.
5. Political and Social Fallout
Because Social Security is one of the most popular federal programs, ending it would be politically explosive. It would lead to intense public backlash, large-scale protests, and significant shifts in voter behavior.
States try to create their own replacement programs, but poorer states struggle to fund them.
The wealth gap would widen sharply. Those without private retirement savings would be left with little to no safety net.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) stands proud according to a press release by the Trump Administration.
August 2025 commemorates its 90th anniversary. It marks its unwavering commitment to the financial security and dignity of millions of Americans. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935. Since then, the program has grown into one of the most successful and trusted institutions in American history.
“For 90 years, Social Security has stood as a promise kept. It ensures that older Americans have the support they need. It also aids people with disabilities, as well as families facing loss,”
said Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano.
“As we honor this legacy, we are also building a future. This future is where service is faster, smarter, and more accessible than ever before. Through President Trump’s vision, we are protecting and preserving Social Security. We achieve this by delivering extraordinary customer service through technological improvements. Enhanced process engineering also plays a crucial role.”
In an open letter to the American people, Commissioner Bisignano emphasized the importance of Social Security. He highlighted his commitment to strengthening the agency. He also mentioned the significant improvements to customer service achieved in his first 100 days in office.
Today, Commissioner Bisignano also joined President Donald J. Trump at the White House. The President issued a presidential proclamation. He recommitted to always defend Social Security. He recognized the countless contributions of every American senior. They have invested their time, talent, and resources into our Nation’s future.
The Day the Flag Stood Still: The Forgotten Fourth of July on Wake Island, 1942
48 Star Flag Saved Sept 1945
On July 4, 1942, Americans back home celebrated Independence Day with cookouts and parades. Meanwhile, a small group of American civilian contractors and U.S. Navy personnel held a defiant but somber celebration under Japanese captivity on a tiny Pacific atoll called Wake Island.
Just months earlier, in December 1941, Wake Island had made headlines when a handful of U.S. Marines, Navy men, and civilian construction workers miraculously repelled a much larger Japanese force. This was one of the only successful defenses during the early days of World War II. But eventually, Wake fell. Hundreds of Americans were captured and held as prisoners.
Despite their grim reality, the spirit of independence didn’t die. On July 4, 1942, many had celebrated the day at home a year prior. A group of prisoners marked the holiday. They secretly stitched together a makeshift American flag from scraps of clothing and parachute fabric. They hid it under a floorboard in their barracks. That night, after roll call, they quietly raised the flag. It was up for just a few moments. That was long enough for the men to salute it and whisper a rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
The penalty for such defiance was death. For those men, risking their lives to honor the flag was worth it. The freedom it stood for—even behind enemy lines—justified their risk.
The flag was never discovered. The war ended in 1945. One of the surviving POWs smuggled the flag fragment home. He had sewn it into the lining of his jacket. It now resides in a museum in Kansas as a silent but powerful witness to patriotism under pressure.
Closing Thought:
Freedom isn’t always loud. It isn’t always celebrated with sparklers and song. Sometimes, it’s whispered in the dark. Saluted in secret. Hidden beneath the floorboards. And yet, even in those moments, it shines just as bright.
The Baptists are at it again. They are raising a protest over who should be allowed to marry. It is as though they alone have the final word. Yet, let us be clear: They are opposing who can walk into a county or state office. They do not want everyone to ask for a marriage license or enter into a legally recognized civil contract. That is not a religious rite. It is a legal agreement—filed, signed, and validated by the state. What the Baptists are trying to do is assert control over who can enter into that civil contract. Moreover, that is where their argument starts to fall apart.
One can understand a church’s wish to define marriage for its faith tradition. For example, it only performs holy matrimony for male-female couples. That is their theological prerogative. Furthermore, the LGBTQI+ community is better served by choosing faith institutions that embrace and affirm their unions. Those places do exist. They conduct beautiful, sacred ceremonies filled with love and meaning.
The Baptists alleged to be upset over same-sex couples marrying are not fighting for “Holy Sanctioned” marriage. Their effort is a thinly veiled effort to legislate bias. They aim to stir up fear and rally support for political agendas. When the current battle over trans rights no longer generates the same heat, they will seek another issue. This will be the next fire they try to stoke. It will be another wedge to deepen divisions. They will build up the offering plate and feed the partisan machine.
Trying to impose a ceremony on a church that fundamentally rejects it leads to resentment. Such an action only reinforces division. It is counterproductive. The real problem arises when religious institutions try to dictate who can access civil marriage through the state. That is not about faith. That is about politics, prejudice, and, frankly, power.
Navigating the Crossroads: Challenges and Resilience in the LGBTQI+ Community
In recent years, the LGBTQI+ community has observed both significant strides toward equality and alarming setbacks that threaten these advancements. As societal acceptance grows in some areas, legislative and social challenges persist, underscoring the need for continued advocacy and awareness.
Mental health disparities continue to be a critical issue within the LGBTQI+ community. According to The Trevor Project’s 2024 National Survey, 39% of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year. The rates rise to 46% among transgender and nonbinary youth. Factors contributing to this crisis include discrimination, lack of access to affirming care, and societal stigma. (1)
Intersex youth face even more pronounced challenges. A study highlighted troubling findings about intersex respondents. It showed that 77% had someone try to change their sexuality or gender identity. Over 10% had undergone conversion therapy. (2)
Access to quality healthcare is a fundamental right, yet many LGBTQI+ individuals face significant obstacles. The Center for American Progress reported that in 2024, 45% of transgender adults postponed medical care due to affordability issues. Additionally, 60% of intersex adults faced the same issue. Additionally, 37% of transgender adults avoided seeking care out of fear of discrimination. (3)
The political landscape further complicates access to necessary care. A survey by FOLX Health revealed that 90% of trans and nonbinary Americans feared the 2024 presidential election. They were concerned it would negatively impact their healthcare access. Notably, 20% had already lost access due to anti-LGBTQ policies. (4)
Legislation plays a pivotal role in shaping the experiences of LGBTQI+ individuals. In 2024, nearly 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were proposed across the United States, with 46 enacted into law. These laws have had profound effects, with over 70% of LGBTQ+ adults reporting negative impacts on their mental health.
Conversely, there have been positive legislative developments. Thirty-seven pro-equality bills were signed into law, focusing on areas like parenting rights and health and safety. (5)
Amid these challenges, community-led initiatives have emerged as beacons of hope. In Connecticut, drag performances educate on health and suicide prevention. They create inclusive spaces for dialogue and support. (6)
The introduction of the Pride in Mental Health Act aims to bolster mental health resources for LGBTQ+ youth. It recognizes the unique challenges they face. The act highlights the importance of affirming care. (7)
The LGBTQI+ community continues to navigate a complex landscape of progress and adversity. While strides have been made in visibility and rights, significant work remains. We need to guarantee fair access to healthcare. Protection under the law is also necessary. Furthermore, societal acceptance must be achieved.
Allies, policymakers, and community members must advocate for inclusive policies. They should support mental health initiatives. It’s essential to foster environments where LGBTQI+ individuals can thrive without fear of discrimination or harm.
Recent Developments Impacting the LGBTQI+ Community
Posted by Movie and Television Show Writer and Actor Del Shores on Facebook –
LGBTQ+ Rights Under Attack in 2025 — And the Fight Continues! But we, as a community, stand firm and resilient.
I posted it many years ago before we could legally marry someone we loved. Before United States v. Windsor struck down DOMA in 2013, and before Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, we finally gave our love full legal recognition nationwide.
And it became one of the most shared things I’ve ever posted.
WHERE WE ARE NOW, 2025!
2025 has seen an alarming surge in anti-LGBTQ+ bills, with over 500 introduced in the U.S. alone.
Over 774 are specifically anti-trans, and 700 of those are still active.
Texas leads the charge with 127 of these hate-fueled bills.
Many of these bills are pushed by the GOP, wrapped in the Bible, and weaponized with false righteousness. It’s the same tactic — just a different year with more hateful rhetoric than ever.
When I wrote “Southern Baptist Sissies” in 2000. I dreamed it would one day feel like a period piece — a snapshot of a fight we’d won. And yet, in 2025, my character Mark’s words still guide me as I fight for and with my LGBTQ+ family and our beautiful allies:
“Sometimes I close my eyes, and I create a perfect world. A world of acceptance and understanding and love. A world where there’s hope. Even if the hope is just whispered, I hear it.”
To the trans community: we see you, love you, and stand with you in unwavering solidarity.
To the so-called Christians using the Bible to harm: you’re using it wrong.
Romans 13:10 — “Love does not harm its neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law.”
Let’s love louder, let’s love more, and let’s love without boundaries.
Let’s keep whispering — and shouting — that hope.
“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God because. God is love.” 1 John 4: 7-8.
The election of Pope Leo XIV—formerly Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost—marks a historic moment. He becomes the first American to lead the Catholic Church. His choice follows the death of Pope Francis. Pope Francis was noted for his progressive stances on social issues. These included LGBTQ+ inclusion .(1)
Implications for the LGBTQI Community
Pope Leo XIV’s past statements suggest a more conservative approach to LGBTQ+ issues compared to his predecessor. In 2012, he expressed concern about popular culture. He believed it was fostering “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the Gospel.” He specifically cited the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.” He has opposed the inclusion of teachings on gender in schools. He describes the promotion of gender ideology as confusing. (2)
Pope Leo XIV has not publicly addressed LGBTQ+ issues since his election. His earlier positions show a potential shift from the more inclusive tone set by Pope Francis. Pope Francis had endorsed civil unions for same-sex couples. He also allowed blessings for same-sex unions. This signaled a more welcoming approach. (3)
Awaiting Future Developments
As Pope Leo XIV begins his papacy, the global Catholic community will be observing his leadership closely. This includes LGBTQ+ members. They will watch how it will shape the Church’s stance on inclusion and diversity. His actions in the coming months will offer clearer insights. His statements will reveal the direction he intends to take on these critical issues.
The recent rallies by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mark a defining moment in contemporary American politics. Across five rallies in three states, tens of thousands gathered. They made a resounding call for change. This signals widespread dissatisfaction with the current political and economic systems. The overwhelming attendance at these events reveals a deep-rooted movement. It is fueled by a demand for economic fairness. There is also a call for political integrity and grassroots-driven reform.
One of the key takeaways from these rallies is the rejection of Trumpism, oligarchy, and authoritarianism. The presence of thousands in North Las Vegas, Tempe, Greeley, Denver, and Tucson shows collective opposition to massive income inequality. Wealth inequality has left many working-class Americans behind. This movement directly responds to a political system. In this system, billionaires hold disproportionate power. They use their wealth to influence elections and dictate policy. The rallies were not simply campaign events; they were gatherings of individuals. They were determined to reclaim democracy from corporate interests. They also wanted to challenge political elites.
Moreover, the movement echoes historical struggles that have shaped the United States. Sanders draws parallels between this modern fight and past movements that have successfully challenged oppression. These include the abolitionist, labor, civil rights, and women’s rights movements. These historical precedents offer a blueprint for today’s progressive movement. They emphasize that real change arises when ordinary people organize. Real change occurs when they take action against systemic injustice.
A critical part of this movement is grassroots organization. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez stress the need to mobilize people in all 50 states through consistent engagement. Mobilizing thousands of people means not only attending rallies but also translating that enthusiasm into political action. Encouraging progressives to run for office at all levels is crucial. This includes positions from school boards to state legislatures. It is a core strategy to enact lasting change. Local elections, often overlooked in the national political discourse, hold immense power in shaping policies that affect daily life.
Additionally, the movement extends beyond electoral politics. It calls for strong communities where people support one another despite economic and social challenges. The emphasis on solidarity reflects the understanding that political change is inseparable from fostering a culture of mutual aid. It also involves building collective strength. The movement creates networks of engaged citizens. The goal is to counteract the feelings of loneliness that many experience in today’s economic landscape. It also addresses feelings of helplessness.
This movement does not overstate the urgency. Sanders highlights the significance of this moment not only for current generations but also for future ones. Climate change, economic disparity, and political corruption are existential issues that need immediate action. The message is clear: now is the time for mobilization, not despair. The fight for a fair and just society depends on ordinary people. They must be willing to challenge entrenched power structures. They must demand a system that works for all.
Arizona, Nevada, Colorado,
In conclusion, the rallies held across Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado exemplify the strength of a growing progressive movement in America. The record-breaking turnouts illustrate a profound discontent with the status quo and a wish for systemic change. By organizing, running for office, and building community solidarity, this movement can redefine the future of American democracy. The path ahead is not easy. History has shown that when people unite for justice, they can overcome even the most powerful obstacles.
Today, I am sharing a translation of instructions initially posted on the BenandSteve.com Facebook page. These instructions were originally written in Spanish. I have translated them to the best of my ability. The English translation is just below.
TRADUCCIÓN AL INGLÉS A CONTINUACIÓN:
Hoy comparto una traducción de las instrucciones publicadas originalmente en la página de Facebook de BenandSteve.com. Estas instrucciones, escritas en español, han sido traducidas lo mejor posible para aquellos que no hablan, leen ni escriben el idioma. Por favor, tengan en cuenta que estas instrucciones no están destinadas a servir como asesoramiento legal, sino más bien como una guía útil para quienes puedan interactuar con las autoridades. Este espacio se ofrece con el propósito de brindar claridad y apoyo a quienes puedan beneficiarse de esta información.
El guía S.I.R.E.N., a menudo promovido por organizaciones de defensa para informar a las personas de sus derechos durante encuentros con la Patrulla Fronteriza o autoridades de inmigración, significa:
S – Mantente Calmo (Stay Calm)
• Mantente tranquilo y evita escalar la situación.
• No corras, resistas ni obstruyas a los oficiales de la ley.
I – Insiste en tu Derecho a Guardar Silencio (Insist on Silence)
• Ejercita tu derecho a guardar silencio.
• No respondas preguntas sobre tu estatus migratorio, dónde naciste o cómo entraste al país.
• Declara: “Estoy ejerciendo mi derecho a guardar silencio.”
R – Rechaza Dar Consentimiento (Refuse Consent)
• No des tu consentimiento para que registren tu persona, tus pertenencias o tu vehículo sin una orden judicial.
• Di: “No doy mi consentimiento para un registro.”
E – Exige Hablar con un Abogado (Engage an Attorney)
• Solicita hablar con un abogado de inmediato.
• No firmes nada sin antes consultar a un abogado.
N – Nunca Mientas (Never Lie)
• Siempre proporciona información verdadera si decides hablar (aunque tienes derecho a no responder preguntas).
• Mentir a los oficiales de inmigración puede tener graves consecuencias.
Estos pasos están diseñados para ayudar a las personas a manejar estas interacciones mientras protegen sus derechos y aseguran que se respeten las garantías legales. Si necesitas recursos o una orientación más detallada, ¡házmelo saber!
Asociación Americana de Abogados de Inmigración (AILA)
Una asociación nacional que promueve leyes y políticas de inmigración justas y aboga por el desarrollo profesional de sus miembros.
Red de Defensores de Inmigración
Un esfuerzo colaborativo entre organizaciones líderes en derechos de inmigrantes que busca aumentar el acceso a la justicia para los inmigrantes.
Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU)
Una organización que ha estado involucrada en muchas luchas legales importantes por los derechos de los inmigrantes.
Consejo Americano de Inmigración
Una organización que utiliza investigaciones, programas y esfuerzos legales y de defensa para dar forma a las políticas y prácticas de inmigración.
Centro de Políticas para Inmigrantes de California (CIPC)
Una organización estatal de derechos de los inmigrantes con oficinas en Los Ángeles, Sacramento y Oakland.
Centro de Estudios de Inmigración
Una organización que proporciona experiencia legal, capacitación, investigaciones y publicaciones.
Si eliges deportarte voluntariamente, busca la ruta más segura.
ENGLISH
Today, I am sharing a translation of instructions initially posted on the BenandSteve.com Facebook page. These instructions were originally written in Spanish. I have translated them to the best of my ability. This is for those who do not speak, read, or write the language. Please note that these instructions are not intended to serve as legal advice. They are meant to be a helpful guide for anyone interacting with authorities. This space is being provided for clarity and support for those benefiting from this information.
The S.I.R.E.N. guide, often promoted by defense organizations to inform people of their rights during encounters with Border Patrol or immigration authorities, means:
S – Keep Calm (Stay Calm)
• Stay calm and avoid escalating the situation.
• Do not run, resist, or hinder law officers.
I – Insist on Your Right to Stay Silent
• Exercise your right to stay silent.
• Do not answer questions about your immigration status, where you were born, or how you entered the country.
• Declares: “I am exercising my right to stay silent. “
R – Refuse Consent
• Do not consent to register your person, belongings, or vehicle without a court order.
• Say: “I do not give my consent for a record. “
Engage an Attorney
• Ask to speak to a lawyer promptly.
• Don’t sign anything without consulting a lawyer first.
N – Never Lie (Never Lie)
• Always give truthful information if you decide to speak (although you have the right not to answer questions).
• Lying to immigration officials can have serious consequences.
These steps help people manage these interactions while protecting their rights and respecting legal safeguards. If you need resources or more detailed guidance, let me know!
American Immigration Lawyers Association A national association that promotes fair immigration laws and policies and advocates for the professional development of its members
Immigration Advocates Network A collaborative effort between leading immigration rights organizations that aims to increase access to justice for immigrants
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): An organization that has been involved in many major legal struggles for immigrant rights
American Immigration Council An organization that uses research, programs, and legal and advocacy efforts to shape immigration policies and practices
California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC)A statewide immigrant rights organization with offices in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Oakland
Center for Immigration Studies An organization that provides legal expertise, training, research, and publications
You can also help fight for immigrant rights by speaking out to elected officials, attending town hall meetings, and voicing your support for immigrants and refugees.
To Stay or Go: Evaluating the Benefits of Remaining on Facebook in Light of Controversial Changes
Social media platforms have become integral to modern life, offering communication, connection, and community building avenues. Nevertheless, as these platforms evolve, so do their policies and practices, often sparking debate about their social and ethical implications. Facebook, a leading social media giant, has recently faced criticism. This criticism is due to changes in its policies on hate speech, bigotry, and LGBTQI support. For individuals making the decision about staying on or leaving Facebook, they hold the power to be informed. Weighing the benefits of both options is essential for this empowerment.
The Case for Staying on Facebook
Maintaining Connections: Facebook remains a vital tool for staying in touch with family. It also helps keep connections with friends and acquaintances, particularly those spread across different regions or countries. For many, it is a lifeline to relationships that would otherwise be difficult to nurture.
Community and Advocacy Opportunities: Despite policy changes, Facebook still hosts several groups and communities that support marginalized voices. These include LGBTQI organizations, social justice movements, and local advocacy efforts. By staying, individuals can continue amplifying positive messages and supporting important causes.
Access to Events and Local Updates: Facebook excels as a hub for event coordination and news dissemination. Whether it’s discovering community gatherings, charity events, or public discussions, the platform enables users to stay engaged with their surroundings.
Platform for Countering Negativity: Staying active on Facebook allows users to directly challenge hate speech and bigotry. Individuals can use their presence to make a positive impact through reporting mechanisms, creating supportive content, and fostering constructive dialogues.
Professional Networking and Opportunities: Beyond personal connections, Facebook provides professional opportunities through networking, business pages, and advertising. Leaving the platform will limit exposure to these tools, which can be crucial for entrepreneurs, freelancers, or small business owners.
The Case for Leaving Facebook
Moral and Ethical Stance: Users can take a stand by leaving Facebook. They do this against policies they perceive as harmful or contrary to their values. This protest can send a powerful message to the platform and its advertisers, influencing change.
Reducing Exposure to Toxic Content: With the relaxation of hate speech policies, users face more harmful content. They become increasingly exposed to offensive material. Removing oneself from the platform eliminates the mental and emotional toll of encountering such material.
Privacy and Data Concerns: Facebook has faced ongoing scrutiny over its handling of user data. Leaving the platform reduces one’s vulnerability to data misuse, targeted advertising, and potential privacy breaches.
Encouraging Other Platforms: Exiting Facebook can prompt individuals to explore different social media platforms that better align with their values. Platforms like Mastodon, MeWe, or local community forums offer a more supportive environment.
Reclaiming Time and Focus: Many users realize an unexpected advantage when they leave Facebook. They find they have more time for hobbies, personal growth, and face-to-face interactions. The departure can foster a sense of liberation from the constant pull of notifications and algorithm-driven content.
Finding a Middle Ground
For those hesitant to make a definitive choice, there are ways to balance the benefits of staying and leaving. Users can regain a sense of control over their Facebook experience by reducing engagement. They can also limit time spent on the platform. Unfollowing toxic pages or users and curating a positive feed helps as well. Additionally, prioritizing different platforms for personal or professional connections while maintaining a minimal Facebook presence can further enhance this control.
Conclusion
The decision to stay on or leave Facebook is very personal. It depends on one’s values, priorities, and tolerance for the platform’s evolving policies. Staying permits individuals to keep connections. They can use their presence for positive change. Leaving can signify a powerful ethical stance. It can lead to personal growth. Regardless of one’s choice, it is essential to evaluate Facebook’s role in one’s life. People should make a decision that aligns with their values and well-being.
Former President Jimmy Carter’s state funeral was held today at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., honoring his legacy as the 39th President of the United States and his extensive humanitarian work. Carter passed away on December 29, 2024, at the age of 100. He was remembered by dignitaries, family, and friends for his dedication to public service. He also made significant global peace efforts.
President Joe Biden delivered an emotional eulogy, highlighting Carter’s unwavering character and lifelong commitment to improving the lives of others. Biden was one of the first senators to endorse Carter’s presidential candidacy. He reflected on their shared values. Carter had a profound impact on the nation. CBS News
All five living U.S. presidents attended the service, including President-elect Donald Trump, who will be inaugurated on January 20, 2025. Trump engaged in a brief but cordial conversation with former President Barack Obama. This marked a rare moment of civility between the two. Reuters
The ceremony featured heartfelt tributes from Carter’s family. His grandson, Jason Carter, praised him as the nation’s “first Millennial,” acknowledging his progressive-thinking approach and enduring legacy. The Sun
Steven Ford, son of the late President Gerald Ford, read his father’s letter for Carter. This action underscored the deep friendship between the two men despite their political rivalry. New York Post
Musical performances added to the solemnity of the occasion. Phyllis Adams, a longtime Delta flight attendant, had earlier performed for the Carters. She delivered a moving rendition of “Amazing Grace.” This fulfilled a special demand made by the late President. CBS News
Security measures were notably heightened for the event, reflecting concerns over potential threats. Despite this, the service proceeded without incident, allowing attendees to focus on honoring Carter’s life and legacy. The Sun
Carter’s remains will be transported to his hometown of Plains, Georgia, after the national ceremony. There, a private service and burial will be held according to his wishes. The Times
From 1977 to 1981, Carter’s presidency was marked by significant achievements. These included the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt. They also involved the establishment of diplomatic relations with China. His post-presidential years were equally impactful. He dedicated himself to human rights and diplomacy. This dedication earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. The Times
The state funeral poignantly reminded us of Carter’s enduring contributions to the nation and the world. It celebrated a life dedicated to service, peace, and the betterment of humanity.
The sun broke over the Air Force Base in Atlanta, Georgia. It cast golden hues across the tarmac as Special Air Mission 39 waited. Its polished surface gleamed in the light. The presidential seal on its side served as a solemn reminder of the journey it was about to undertake. Inside, a reverent hush filled the cabin. The crew prepared for their most crucial passenger. It was a man whose life had been dedicated to service, humility, and unwavering commitment—President Jimmy Carter.
From his earliest days at the Naval Academy, James Earl Carter Jr. was shaped by discipline, honor, and an unrelenting drive to do his best. Those who knew him often remarked on his quiet determination. His former Navy colleagues remember him as a man of integrity, always putting the welfare of his team first. Carter navigated the complexities of submarine systems in the Navy with steady resolve. He also tackled global issues from the Oval Office with the same determination.
The engines roared to life for Special Air Mission 39. This was what President Carter had once known as Air Force One. At that moment, the memory of his long journey sharpened. Memories of his enduring journey came into sharp focus. Here was a man who had never sought power for power’s sake but had wielded it to uplift others. In the years after his presidency, Carter’s service reverberated across communities. He built homes for people experiencing homelessness. He mediated peace in war-torn nations. Additionally, he battled disease through the Carter Center. His legacy was not confined to history books but lived on in the lives he had touched.
The flight crew gathered for a moment of silence before departure. Captain Emily Harrington, a seasoned pilot who had long admired Carter, addressed her team.
“Today, we honor not just a president but a man who believed in the power of service. Let’s give him the journey he deserves.”
As the plane ascended, the passengers—family, close friends, and select members of his administration—reflected on his unwavering faith and commitment. Rosalynn, his beloved late wife, was his partner for more than seven decades. She was waiting for him at their Plains, Georgia home. She also waited in Jimmy’s heart, where their journey had begun. Jimmy would be back. He had business in D.C. to take care of first. President Carter would fly there with the family. He would lay in state at the Capital Rotunda. He would attend a state memorial service. Later in the week, he would return to Plains, Georgia. He would be laid next to Rosalynn at their place of burial.
The flight path traced the arc of his life. It went over the rural farmlands of Georgia. The soil there had nurtured his love for community and the values of hard work and compassion. The Naval Academy in Annapolis, where young Jimmy had set the course for a lifetime of service. Over Washington, D.C., where he had walked into the presidency with a promise to lead with integrity.
As SAM 39 descended, the crowd gathered below to pay their respects. They came not just to honor a president. They came to honor a man who had reminded the world that authentic leadership lies in humility. True leadership also involves an unwavering commitment to doing what is right.
The plane touched down with grace, its engines whispering to a stop. The door opened, and the honor guard stepped ahead to carry Carter to the Rotunda. The air was heavy with gratitude, sorrow, and pride. A man who had given so much of himself had completed the second leg of his journey. There was only one more leg left in the final part of his last journey.
In the quiet stillness of that moment, a quote from Carter’s own words have echoed in the hearts of all there:
“My faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I can, whenever I can, for as long as I can, with whatever I have, to try to make a difference.”
Long after leaving the White House, Jimmy Carter found solace in the quiet rhythms of nature. On a sunny morning in Plains, Georgia, Jimmy stood at the edge of a grove. He had planted these trees decades ago. These trees—mahogany, maple, and spruce—weren’t native to the region. Carter had brought their seeds home from his travels. He envisioned them growing tall and strong in the fertile Georgian soil.
Jimmy called what others saw as an unusual hobby his “living legacy.” Each tree had a purpose, and he dreamed of turning their wood into something meaningful. One day, while strumming his old guitar on the porch, the idea struck him:
What if I made a guitar from the trees I grew with my own hands?
The Craft
Years passed before the time was right. Jimmy carefully chose a mahogany tree for the body. He selected a maple tree for the neck. He also picked spruce for the soundboard. He contacted a local luthier, Sam Wainwright, who had a reputation for crafting instruments with heart and precision.
Sam, skeptical at first, raised an eyebrow when Jimmy proposed the project.
“You’re telling me you’ve been growing trees for years just for this?”
Jimmy chuckled.
“A good guitar starts with good wood. I figured, why not grow my own?”
Sam couldn’t argue with the sentiment. They spent hours examining the wood, carefully cutting it, and shaping it to perfection. Jimmy insisted on being part of every step, from sanding the pieces to carving the intricate rosette around the soundhole.
As they worked, Jimmy shared stories—about his childhood in the rural South, his presidency, and his humanitarian efforts. Sam listened intently, realizing the guitar wasn’t just an instrument but a symbol of patience, purpose, and creativity.
The First Song
Months later, the guitar was finished. Its finish glowed like amber honey. Its tone was warm and resonant. It carried the richness of the wood’s decades-long journey. Jimmy held it in his hands. He marveled at how the trees he had nurtured now sang harmoniously. They created a sound that was not just music. It was a testament to the beauty of nature.
During a warm summer evening, friends and family gathered. Jimmy sat on his porch with the guitar resting comfortably in his lap. He strummed the first chords, their notes floating into the peach-scented air.
The song he played was one he had written himself. It was a simple tune about the roots—both in the ground and in life. It spoke of time, care, and the beauty of watching something grow. The crowd swayed to the music. Their faces lit with admiration for the man who had turned trees into tunes. They felt a sense of nostalgia for the simple, yet profound, message of the song.
A Lasting Legacy
In the years that followed, the guitar became more than an instrument. Jimmy used it to teach music to children, play for visitors, and raise funds for Habitat for Humanity. Each time its strings vibrated, it told a story of persistence and hope.
When asked why he had gone to such lengths to make the guitar, Jimmy would smile and say,
“It reminds us that good things take time. The simplest gifts, like a tree or a song, can bring the most joy.”
The guitar from Jimmy Carter’s Grove wasn’t just a piece of wood strung together. It was a testament to a life rooted in purpose and patience. It symbolized the belief that even the smallest seeds can create something extraordinary.
An original report exists in Guitar World, which you can find here!
Jimmy Carter served as the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981. He brought a quiet and deliberate resolve to the Oval Office. Carter was a former peanut farmer and Georgia governor. His presidency was shaped by his outsider status. He was known for his Southern charm and deep sense of morality. This quiet resolve was tested by the significant challenges he faced, but it never wavered.
Carter inherited a nation grappling with inflation, an energy crisis, and a faltering trust in government post-Watergate. Undeterred, he tackled the energy crisis head-on. He donned a cardigan during televised addresses to encourage Americans to conserve energy. He also urged Congress to pass legislation for renewable resources and energy independence. His solar panels on the White House symbolized a progressive-thinking approach that would resonate decades later.
On the international stage, Carter championed human rights, placing them at the core of U.S. foreign policy. His leadership during the Camp David Accords remains a hallmark of his presidency. It was a historic peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. This significant achievement demonstrated his commitment to diplomacy and peace. It marked the first time an Arab country formally recognized Israel.
Jimmy Carter – TheCarter Center Photo
Yet, Carter’s term was also marred by challenges. The Iranian hostage crisis cast a long shadow as 52 Americans were held captive for 444 days. The crisis tested his patience. It also tested his diplomacy. The eventual release of the hostages coincided with Ronald Reagan’s inauguration. This became a bittersweet moment in his legacy. Carter showed resilience during this crisis. It proved his unwavering commitment to his duties as President.
Jimmy Carter – The Carter Center Photo
Carter served only one term. His presidency reflected his unwavering belief in doing what was right. He did this regardless of political consequences. His tenure laid the groundwork for a post-presidential humanitarian service life, earning him the Nobel Peace Prize decades later. This continued commitment to the greater good is a testament to the lasting impact of his presidency.
Jimmy Carter’s time in office was not marked by soaring rhetoric or overwhelming popularity. Still, it was defined by integrity, resilience, and a steadfast commitment to the greater good.
The year was 1977, and Jimmy Carter had just taken the oath of office. A peanut farmer from Georgia, he brought a unique sensibility rooted in his Southern upbringing and a deep love for American culture, particularly country music. This unique combination of his Southern roots and his love for country music not only shaped his personal life but also influenced his presidency, allowing him to connect with the struggles and joys of everyday Americans.
Waylon Jennings Family
When he stepped into the White House, Carter made it clear that the arts, especially music, would have a place of honor in his administration. He often reminisced about listening to gospel and country music on the family radio back in Plains, Georgia, where the soulful twang of artists like Hank Williams and the Carter Family resonated with the struggles and joys of everyday Americans, a sentiment he deeply shared.
One evening, during a White House dinner, Carter invited Willie Nelson to perform on the South Lawn. The night was balmy, and as the country star strummed his guitar under a canopy of stars, Carter took the opportunity to speak.
White House Photo – Carter Library
“Country music,” he said, “is the heart and soul of America. It tells the story of our struggles, faith, and hope.”
Carter’s admiration wasn’t just lip service. He actively promoted the genre, ensuring it received the recognition it deserved as an integral part of American culture. He invited artists like Loretta Lynn, Johnny Cash, and Dolly Parton to the White House. He even arranged for country music showcases at international events to share a slice of Americana with the world. His unwavering efforts significantly influenced the genre’s rise to mainstream respectability during the late 20th century.
Bill Anderson with The Carters
But Carter’s legacy extended far beyond his love of country music. He brokered the Camp David Accords, a landmark peace agreement between Egypt and Israel that demonstrated his diplomacy skills and commitment to global peace. He championed human rights globally, making them a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. He also pushed for energy conservation, installing solar panels on the White House roof long before climate change became a widely recognized issue.
After leaving office, Carter’s achievements only grew. He founded The Carter Center, dedicated to promoting democracy, fighting disease, and mediating conflicts worldwide. His work eradicating diseases like Guinea worm, even in his post-presidential years, demonstrated his enduring compassion and determination to make the world better.
As for country music, Carter’s genre promotion left a lasting legacy. Many country artists credited him with helping to elevate their art to a global stage. Even decades later, when asked about his presidency, Carter would smile and say,
“If I could broker peace and get people to tap their feet to country music, then I’ve done my job.”
Jimmy Carter’s presidency may not have been perfect. Still, his love for the arts, his commitment to peace, and his tireless work for humanity made him a leader whose legacy resonates far beyond the Oval Office.
The summer in Plains, Georgia, was hot and humid. Young Jimmy Carter, no more than ten years old, sat under the shade of an old pecan tree. Beside him stood a makeshift wooden stand crafted from spare planks his father had discarded. A hand-painted sign read, “Peanuts 5¢ a Bag.”
Jimmy’s father, Earl, suggested selling peanuts after the latest harvest.
“You’ll learn the value of hard work,”
Earl had said, his weathered hand resting on Jimmy’s shoulder.
“And how to talk to people. That’s important.”
Jimmy Carter
Jimmy took the advice seriously. He woke early each morning to bag the peanuts. He carefully measured each part to guarantee every customer got their money’s worth. Then he’d march down the dirt road to the little stand. He would sit there until the sun dipped low in the sky.
On this particular day, business was slow. The air was thick with the buzz of cicadas, and Jimmy’s mind wandered as he stared down the empty road. He thought about the world beyond Plains. It was a world he’d only glimpsed in books. Travelers passing through town also told him stories about it.
As he mused, a car sputtered to a stop nearby. It was an old Ford, its green paint faded and dust-caked. A man stepped out, dressed in overalls and a straw hat. He approached the stand with a friendly smile.
“Afternoon, young man,”
the stranger said, his voice tinged with a twang.
“How much for a bag of those peanuts?”
“Five cents, sir,”
Jimmy replied, standing up straight.
The man chuckled.
“You drive a hard bargain, but I reckon it’s worth it.”
He handed Jimmy a shiny nickel, and Jimmy passed him a bag of peanuts in return.
The man lingered, munching on the peanuts as he leaned against the car.
“You’re Earl Carter’s boy, ain’t ya?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Well, you got his knack for business. Ever think about what you wanna do when you’re older?”
Jimmy hesitated, then spoke with quiet determination.
“I think I’d like to help people. Maybe be a farmer like my dad, or –– maybe even something bigger. Like a teacher or someone who solves problems.”
The man nodded thoughtfully.
Jimmy Carter was a teenager then. He was number 10 in a group portrait of the Plains High School basketball team. The photo was taken in Plains, Georgia, around 1940.
“That’s a fine ambition. Keep that kindness in your heart, boy. The world can use more folks like you.”
Jimmy smiled, his youthful confidence bolstered by the stranger’s words.
Years later, as President of the United States, Jimmy Carter often recalled that summer by the peanut stand. There, under the pecan tree, he first learned the value of hard work. He also learned humility and the simple power of connecting with others. These were lessons that would guide him throughout his life.
The stand was long gone. But, the spirit of that little boy with big dreams remained. It was forever rooted in the red soil of Plains.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 marked a pivotal moment in U.S. immigration history, becoming the first significant federal law restricting immigration. It targeted a specific ethnic group driven by economic fears, racial prejudice, and political populism. A review of this historic legislation, alongside the context of its enactment, reveals striking parallels to modern immigration debates. Both historical and contemporary issues illustrate how economic anxieties, cultural misunderstandings, and political opportunism can drive restrictive immigration policies that may ultimately prove disastrous for society.
The Role of Immigrant Labor in Economic Development
In the mid-19th century, Chinese immigrants, despite facing systemic discrimination and being blamed for economic problems, played a crucial role in building the American West. Their resilience and determination were evident in their instrumental role in constructing the transcontinental railroad, tackling some of the most dangerous and demanding jobs in brutal conditions. However, when the Panic of 1873 led to widespread unemployment, populist sentiment scapegoated Chinese immigrants, claiming they were stealing jobs from white workers.
A similar narrative exists today. Immigrant labor is fundamental to the agriculture, construction, and technology industries. Despite this, immigrants are often vilified during economic downturns, accused of taking jobs or lowering wages. This cyclical pattern of scapegoating undermines the reality that immigrants frequently perform jobs that native-born workers are unwilling or unable to do, driving economic growth and innovation. Restrictive immigration policies, such as deportations or bans, risk damaging these essential industries and the broader economy, much like the exclusion of Chinese workers stunted specific sectors in the late 19th century.
Cultural Backlash and Populist Politics
The transcontinental railroad’s completion in 1869 symbolized a remarkable technological achievement but also marked a turning point for Chinese immigrants. Their presence sparked a cultural backlash as they settled in communities like Truckee, California. Fueled by racial prejudice and populist rhetoric, white workers and politicians pushed for their exclusion, culminating in the Chinese Exclusion Act. This act institutionalized xenophobia and created a precedent for racially biased immigration policies.
Today, cultural anxieties continue to shape immigration debates. Concerns about preserving cultural identity and fears of “otherness” fuel resistance to immigrants. Particularly from Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. Politicians often exploit these fears to rally support, pushing for restrictive measures such as border walls, travel bans, or mass deportations. Such actions not only marginalize immigrant communities but also foster division and xenophobia, hindering social cohesion.
Economic Consequences of Restriction
The long-term economic impacts of the Chinese Exclusion Act highlight the dangers of restrictive immigration policies. By limiting a vital workforce, the law hampered industries reliant on immigrant labor. The exclusion of Chinese workers also set a precedent that discouraged innovation and adaptability in labor markets, contributing to stagnation in certain regions.
Policies that limit immigrant contributions to the workforce have modern parallels. For example, restrictive visa programs and deportations threaten industries like agriculture and technology, which rely heavily on immigrant talent. Moreover, these policies can exacerbate labor shortages, driving up consumer costs and reducing the global competitiveness of U.S. industries. History demonstrates that economic growth thrives on diversity and inclusion, not exclusion.
Lessons from the Past
The Chinese Exclusion Act teaches us that targeting immigrants as scapegoats for economic or social challenges is a shortsighted and counterproductive strategy. Immigration is a cornerstone of American prosperity, fostering innovation, cultural richness, and financial resilience. Policies driven by fear and prejudice, rather than informed analysis, risk repeating the mistakes of the past and should be considered.
Today’s immigration debates echo the populist rhetoric and exclusionary measures of the late 19th century. However, we have the benefit of hindsight to recognize that such policies often create more problems than they solve. To avoid a similar disaster, today’s policymakers must approach immigration with a focus on integration, economic opportunity, and respect for human dignity. By learning from history, we can build a more inclusive and prosperous future, where all individuals feel valued and respected.
America is at a turning point, a moment so profound that many may not see the year’s end without facing life-altering consequences. These changes aren’t their fault. They stem from forces more significant than any single person or group—forces set in motion long ago.
The nation stands on the brink of challenges unseen in living memory. No vote, no leader, no hero can steer us away from what’s coming. The roots of our crisis lie in greed and unchecked ambition, planted by individuals we know and trust—people we’ll sit across from at holiday dinners, unaware they helped build the road to this moment.
As the months unfold, our choices are narrowing. The lives we’ve known, filled with freedom of association, laughter, and uninhibited conversation, are under siege. Soon, those liberties may be reshaped or stripped away entirely, dictated by legislation crafted by those who believe they know better.
Imagine a world where our words must align with an official narrative, where dissent is no longer tolerated. Our daily connections—jokes, debates, and chatter—become whispers of a bygone era. Communication will be monitored, censored, or stifled entirely. Freedom of thought, once a cornerstone of this great land, will be reduced to a memory.
And yet, it is worth remembering:
We let this happen.
Or rather, “they” did.
Those who wielded their votes, believing in promises that veiled agendas, have delivered us to this precipice.
It is “they” who must now reckon with what “they’ve” done to the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.”
But reckoning is not enough. As the storm looms, let us not resign ourselves to despair. Let us remember who we are and what we stand for. Even as the path ahead grows darker, there remains a flicker of the courage, resilience, and unity that built this nation. We must nurture that spark, which may guide us back to the light.
Nearly half of Americans who cast ballots in the November 5, 2024, Presidential Election voted for Kamala Harris; the other half for Donald Trump.
At this stage, it’s less about who supported whom and more about what lies ahead. If Trump follows through on his campaign promises, there could be significant changes in government agencies, which might affect the benefits that many Americans depend on. He has openly vowed to bring retribution against those he views as adversaries—potentially including the half of the nation that didn’t vote for him. However, it’s also important to note that not all of his promises may come to fruition, and the political system has checks and balances to prevent extreme actions.
Federal law enforcement agencies involved in national security and other branches focused on homeland security could be dissolved. Trump has publicly stated his intent to dismantle these institutions.
Social programs for adults, older people, and those with disabilities—such as food assistance, school aid, healthcare, and Social Security—are likely to face drastic cuts, potentially leaving them virtually ineffective for those in need. He has said as much.
LGBTQI+ rights and protections are also under threat, as outlined in Project 2025, a policy initiative he supports. If you think this won’t materialize, consider the promises already laid out. The next four years will show us the reality.
If Trump appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to oversee public health, as he has suggested, food and drug safety regulations could be gutted. Protections that ensure safe food, medications, and clean drinking water could be stripped away, leading to significant health risks.
Trump is likely to have the backing of a Republican-controlled House and Senate. New laws and repeals may come as swiftly and forcefully as debris in a tornado. The U.S. could change drastically, and not only non-supporters would feel the impact—Trump supporters, too, could face serious, unforeseen consequences.
Expect an economic downturn as average Americans encounter hardships unprecedented in recent history. As with the COVID-19 crisis, another wave of upheaval may follow. Trump’s track record shows a tendency for crises, particularly in ventures he leads. The economic future under his leadership looks bleak.
What You Can Do
HOARD – Stock up on canned goods and cash reserves outside traditional banking institutions. Prepare for potential utility outages and find ways to stay connected without reliance on cell phones or computers. Secure a supply of both drinking and non-drinking water to meet various needs.
PROTECT – Prioritize security measures for yourself, your home, and your property, particularly those independent of electricity. Stock up on self-defense tools like bear spray or mace. Ensure that your home’s locks are strong both inside and out. In the event of an intruder, remember: in a fight for survival, any measure is justifiable. There are no rules when fighting for your life. Anything is fair!
These are just a few preparations to consider. With the current political landscape in both Houses and the Supreme Court tilted in Trump’s favor, our democratic processes could be at risk. This election may mark our last chance to elect our President—and our future as a democracy. It’s critical to stay informed, engage in the political process, and support organizations that defend democratic values. Together, we can make a difference.
“Make America Great Again,” popularized as a political slogan, has become highly polarizing. To supporters, it often symbolizes a call to return to a time of perceived economic strength, national pride, and social stability. However, for many others, it has come to signify a darker undertone: a desire to revert to an era when certain marginalized groups—such as African Americans, LGBTQ+ individuals, Jewish people, Hispanics, and other minorities—lacked complete protection under the law.
The Historical and Social Context
The slogan evokes an ambiguous sense of “greatness,” sparking questions of when America was indeed “great” and for whom. Many point to the slogan as a reference to a mid-20th century America, a period before civil rights advancements began to reshape the nation’s legal and social landscape. This era, regardless of its association with post-war prosperity and expanding economic opportunity, was also marked by segregation, widespread discrimination, and limited civil rights protections for racial and ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Civil rights legislation and landmark court decisions have progressively addressed these disparities in the past fifty years. The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act represent some of the significant strides made in affording marginalized groups equal rights and protection under the law. Critics argue that calling for a return to pre-1960s values implies a desire to dismantle some of these protections and regain a hierarchical social order that was deeply exclusionary.
Perceptions of “Make America Great Again” in Modern Discourse
The MAGA slogan is seen by many as a coded message suggesting that the progress made by minorities threatens traditional values or destabilizes society. Rhetoric often associated with the slogan—such as fear of “radical left” agendas, immigration restrictions, and questioning of affirmative action—has exacerbated this perception. For example, according to surveys and sociopolitical analyses, minority groups and their advocates often interpret the slogan as a form of resistance against multiculturalism and diversity. This view became reinforced by incidents in which white nationalist groups appropriated the slogan to promote exclusionary ideologies.
Discrimination and Political Messaging
Political messaging using the phrase has stirred debates over whether it subtly promotes a return to exclusive societal norms. Advocacy groups for racial, ethnic, and LGBTQ+ rights warn that MAGA rhetoric has indirectly contributed to policy decisions that undermine or reverse hard-won civil liberties, such as efforts to restrict voting access, challenge affirmative action, limit LGBTQ+ protections, and enact immigration controls targeting specific nationalities or religions.
Conclusion
The “Make America Great Again” slogan has thus come to represent more than a call for economic or national rejuvenation; it embodies a divisive struggle over America’s values and the inclusivity of its future. For critics, it suggests a rollback on the inclusivity and rights advancements achieved over the past five decades. It serves as a reminder that the interpretation of slogans in political discourse can carry implicit biases and, in doing so, perpetuate exclusionary beliefs that impact marginalized communities.
The term “Make America Great Again” has a different meaning, and it stands on the grounds that to make America Great Again, there has to be the revoking of rights that have been attained by groups over the last fifty years. Those groups include blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, Asians, the LGBTQI+ Community, and others. Because of that angle, this space will discuss the topic in the November 1st, 2024 posting.
Understanding the range of meanings attributed to “Make America Great Again” offers insight into the complexities of contemporary American identity and the societal debate over what “greatness” truly entails in an evolving multicultural landscape.
The fall of 2024 found a vibrant small community town hall filled with locals from every walk of life. The walls became lined with a diverse array of familiar faces of the neighborhood—retired teachers, young activists, military veterans, and longtime friends who had lived through decades of change, some of it hard-won, others bittersweet. On the stage, with a sign reading “Let’s Talk About Greatness,” stood a panel, each holding their idea of what that greatness looked like.
Jared, a man in his late sixties with a MAGA hat perched atop his head, leaned forward as he spoke, –––
“I want my kids and grandkids to grow up in a country that feels strong, proud, and united—like it was back then. We all knew our neighbors. Families were close-knit. There was a sense of American unity.”
Dolores, a retired history teacher, nodded beside him. But as the crowd listened, some exchanged looks. –––
“So, Jared, I get what you’re saying,” a young local journalist interrupted Lena. But when we say ‘back then,’ do we mean the same thing?”
Jared paused, looking thoughtful, as Dolores took the microphone. –––
“We tend to remember the good and forget the rest,” she said gently. I remember growing up in the fifties and sixties. It was stable and ideal for some of us, but not everyone. This ‘great’ past we want to go back to meant certain people couldn’t vote. Others had to hide who they loved. And women—our dreams were seen as distractions to a family.”
There was a hush as Dolores’s words hung in the air.
“I don’t think Jared meant that,”
––– came a soft voice from the audience. It was Naomi, a single mother and community organizer.
“But when we say we want to ‘Make America Great Again,’ we have to ask—for whom? The history we’re returning to was not the same experience for everyone.”
The community members exchanged glances. Jared turned back to the crowd. –––
“I respect what you’re saying, Naomi,”
he replied, genuinely thoughtfully. –––
“When I say ‘greatness,’ I’m not talking about racism or inequality. I’m talking about hard work, pride, patriotism—things that feel like they’re slipping away.”
Naomi nodded understanding, fostering a sense of mutual respect and value for each other’s perspectives, highlighting the importance of open and respectful dialogue in the community.
“But the word again implies that we want to go backward,”
––– Lena pointed out.
“And, for me, that’s concerning. I love this country and respect what’s gone into making it better. I mean, we have interracial marriage, legal protections for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights for everyone.”
––– Lena paused, looking at Jared.
“To me, that’s American greatness—now.”
As the meeting unfolded, the debate deepened. Various members shared stories of progress and hardships. Kayla, a small business owner, spoke about her pride in balancing work and motherhood.
“When I hear traditional values, I think of something different than my grandmother might have,”
––– she said.
“My values include family, hard work, women’s rights, and equal opportunities.”
Another voice said,
“Look, I served in the military, and I believe in protecting this country,”
––– said Tom, a retired Marine and a man with a thick gray beard.
“I fought for an America that moves forward and doesn’t leave anyone behind. ‘Greatness’ is complex—strong enough to protect everyone’s rights.”
The meeting wrapped up with the group realizing that “greatness” was many things, each person’s version holding personal meaning. Dolores took the microphone one last time:
“Maybe we can remember this—our vision of a truly great America embraces both the good of the past and the advancements we’ve made. To build greatness, we don’t go backward. We keep moving and evolving, ensuring that each generation has the opportunity to contribute to a better America, instilling a sense of hope and optimism in the audience for the future.”
The room echoed with nods of agreement, and as the townspeople filed out, they carried forward a renewed understanding: that the road to greatness was not paved with nostalgia alone but with a willingness to grow beyond it.
The term “Make America Great Again” has a different meaning, and it stands on the grounds that to make America Great Again, there has to be the revoking of rights that have been attained by groups over the last fifty years. Those groups include blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, Asians, the LGBTQI+ Community, and others. Because of that angle, this space will discuss the topic in the November 1st, 2024 posting.
Understanding the range of meanings attributed to “Make America Great Again” offers insight into the complexities of contemporary American identity and the societal debate over what “greatness” truly entails in an evolving multicultural landscape.
My dad and grandfather are gone now, but neither would support a liar, cheat, rapist, insurrectionist, dictator, or someone who supports one, or generally speaking, a creep or ‘weirdo.’
There are other reasons you can look at as well. For instance, a candidate such has a sexual offense judgment against him, and he is under indictment for countless federal crimes; in the last year, one of the candidates was in the air, flying, on their way to being arrested, just as much as he was campaigning at one point.
One or more of those reasons would have been reason enough to consider looking into the person’s background. And three to four, would have been reason enough to reject a person all together. Someone who was strongly running for public office would have been rejected. Now, the GOP considers it a qualification required for all Republican candidates.
The candidates have endorsements from KKK members. They boast about, a presidential politician having endorsements from dictators. They wallow in such markings, and candidates publicly brag about laws they will violate first, if elected. And this makes them the most qualified candidate. Going as far as boasting about becoming a dictator. Going about telling people this is the last election they will have to worry about voting in.
Why? Does that mean the Constitution is going to get ripped apart, shredded, and there will no longer be a United States where the people choose its leaders? It appears it doesn’t matter to the people who are numb and following this character. They appear to have zoned out of reality.
My grandfather, father, uncles, aunts, and even a few dogs and horses I’ve had would not have allowed the goings on to persist. The greatest generation has died chiefly off; fewer of them now than ever are living, which sadly shows in our world. They were the ones who knew what happens when the world that falls to fascism. When reality hits and the world dies. It is beginning as America will turn grey; it will become a black-and-white construct of anything anyone remembers of its being, if these destructionists are permitted to have their way with the country. We only hope enough voters come to the polls and and vote, and save our America!
My dad had a favorite saying: the older I got, the wiser he’d get. And he was right; I wish he were here to help us out of this madness!
Information Produced and Presented By Organizations Other Than Groff Media 2024
Above, two-time Academy Award nominee Marshall Curry presents A Night at The Garden, a film that revisits a night in February 1939 when “20,000 Americans rallied in New York’s Madison Square Garden to celebrate the rise of Nazism — an event largely forgotten from U.S. history.” As we described it back in 2017, the film documents the following scene:
What you’re looking at is the 1939 “Pro-American Rally” (aka Pro-Nazi Rally) sponsored by the German American Bund at Madison Square Garden on George Washington’s 207th Birthday. Banners emblazoned with such slogans as “Stop Jewish Domination of Christian Americans,” “Wake Up America. Smash Jewish Communism,” and “1,000,000 Bund Members by 1940” decorated the great hall.
New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia—an Episcopalian with a Jewish mother—considered canceling the event, but ultimately he, along with the American Jewish Committee and the American Civil Liberties Committee decreed that the Bund was exercising its right to free speech and free assembly.
A crowd of 20,000 filled the famous sports venue in mid-town Manhattan to capacity. 1,500 police officers were present to render the Garden “a fortress impregnable to anti-Nazis.” An estimated 100,000 counter-demonstrators were gathering outside.…
The most disturbing moment in the short film comes at the 3:50 mark, when another security force—the Bund’s Ordnungsdienst or “Order Service” pile on Isidore Greenbaum, a 26-year-old Jewish worker who rushed the podium where bundesführerFritz Julius Kuhn was fanning the flames of hatred. Valentine’s men eventually pulled them off, just barely managing to save the “anti-Nazi” from the vicious beating he was undergoing.
Made entirely from archival footage filmed that night, A Night at The Garden “transports audiences to this chilling gathering and shines a light on the power of demagoguery and anti-Semitism in the United States.” You can learn more about the film and the 1939 rally at Marshall Curry’s web site.
Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or other xenophobic rallies being held this weekend in Madison Square Garden is purely coincidental, of course.
MAGA Is Not The First To Attempt And Bring Down America. A Populist Movement Nearly Destroyed American Democracy Over 110 Years Ago, But Our Democracy Prevailed
Over a century ago, the United States grappled with a political movement that closely resembled today’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement, a populist uprising spearheaded by former President Donald Trump. Like MAGA, this earlier movement thrived on populist discontent, nativist sentiments, and rejection of the established order. If not kept in check, it could have reshaped American democracy in ways that might have undermined its democratic institutions, a peril we must remain vigilant against.
One of the most significant instances was during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency, a man with intricate political loyalties. In 1912, Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party brought populist elements into the political mainstream, appealing to working-class voters who felt marginalized by the two major parties. While Roosevelt was not anti-democratic, his charismatic leadership style and his ability to rally crowds around a strongman image set a precedent for future political movements that would seek to undermine democratic norms.
Simultaneously, the rise of the “America First” movement and the Ku Klux Klan spanning the 1920s showed how easily populist rhetoric could veer into exclusionary nationalism and nativism. The Klan’s widespread influence reached local, state, and federal government levels, promoting an agenda that sought to disenfranchise non-white citizens, immigrants, and anyone considered “un-American.” This movement found an audience among rural and working-class Americans who felt left behind by the rapid industrialization and modernization of the country.
At the heart of these movements was a profound distrust of the government, elites, and institutions—just like the anti-establishment fervor that fueled the rise of MAGA. These movements aimed to “restore” a vision of America rooted in racial and social hierarchies, often using violent rhetoric and intimidation to achieve their goals. Had these populist forces gained more traction, they could have severely damaged the democratic foundation of the country, ushering in a more authoritarian regime.
It took concerted efforts from citizens and political leaders to resist these dangerous movements and restore democratic norms. In some ways, the lessons from over a century ago echo loudly today: unchecked populism, especially when it flirts with nativism and authoritarianism, can bring democracy to the brink of collapse. However, this history also reminds us of our power to shape the future of our democracy, offering hope and inspiration for positive change.
Today, as MAGA remains a force in American politics, it is crucial to remember that the battle to preserve democracy requires vigilance. While populism can express legitimate grievances of people who feel left behind, it must not be allowed to erode the institutions enabling democracy to function. History teaches us that democracy’s survival depends on our ability to balance widespread anger with reasoned leadership and respect for the rule of law. We all have a role to play in this ongoing struggle, and our vigilance is required to maintain a true Republic of the People!
What you leave today becomes someone’s answer tomorrow.