Morning Coffee -–– The Habana: Behind The Laughter

“Within an hour and a half everyone was a ten!”

By Benjamin Groff II GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

October 14, 2026


This morning’s coffee takes us back to a time long ago. If you remember it, good for you. For most of us, there are a few parts missing.

It was a time when the rules were more of a suggestion, and the law was applied with a light touch. I know. I was the one applying it.

Exterior view of Habana Inn, featuring a large sign with palm tree graphics and a welcoming message, surrounded by parked cars and greenery.

So pour yourself a cup, folks. We’re going back to the Habana—where the drinks were strong, the characters were unforgettable, and the details sometimes depended on who was doing the remembering.

It was the early 1980s, and another celebration was underway at the Habana Inn in Oklahoma City. Around that place, it sometimes seemed as though there was something to celebrate every day.

Then came a bomb threat.

Calls went to the hotel and the police and fire departments. The caller provided enough detail to raise serious concerns, and the decision was made to evacuate the property. Shows were taking place that afternoon, and drag queens were everywhere. Hotel employees began directing guests toward a parking lot across from the northeast corner of the hotel.

The manager was a short, feisty man whose name I can no longer recall. He was of retirement age, and he expected people to listen when he spoke. That afternoon, he made his way around the property telling everyone to leave.

Behind the hotel, near the back swimming pool, he encountered a drag queen who wasn’t inclined to follow his instructions.

A view of a swimming pool surrounded by lounge chairs and greenery, with people enjoying the water and sun under a large colorful umbrella.

He explained that there had been a bomb threat and that she needed to evacuate. She refused. They exchanged words. Then the manager pulled out a can of mace and sprayed her.

Her makeup began running down her face, and her reaction left little doubt about how badly it burned. But she wasn’t backing down. She pulled off a high-heeled shoe and took off after him.

Across the street, KOCO-TV had a camera crew filming the evacuation for the evening news. Suddenly, through the hotel’s front entrance came the manager, running for all he was worth. Behind him came the drag queen, makeup ruined, shoe raised overhead, screaming and cussing.

The folks gathered across the street had plenty to say about that unexpected addition to the afternoon’s entertainment. I don’t remember every remark, but the scene hardly needed commentary.

As I recall, a group of bartenders from the Pipeline—which later became the Finish Line—intercepted her and helped the manager reach safety.

For those who witnessed it, that chase became one of the Habana stories that never quite faded. Among those still around to tell it, I imagine it remains as vivid as ever.

But the laughter is only one part of what I remember.

The manager continued working and living at the Habana until he was found dead one morning in Penthouse B, near the back swimming pool.

Questions circulated afterward. Had someone been with him? Had he suffered a heart attack? Had anything else contributed to his death? People offered theories, but I never learned a confirmed explanation.

His would not be the only death I came to associate with that room.

One of the others was a man I knew well: Larry. I keep the last name to preserve the privacy for the family.

Larry was a bail bondsman, a reserve deputy with the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office, and the owner of a pawnshop in Del City. You would have been hard-pressed to meet a nicer man.

He also struggled with the distance between who he was and who he believed the world expected him to be. We talked about that. From what I saw, liquor and drugs had become ways for him to cope.

Our friendship did not erase my responsibilities as a police officer. More than once, I told him plainly, “If I ever catch you with drugs, it’s going to be the slammer. I can’t look the other way.”

Then I would get off duty, and we would go browsing through secondhand stores, looking through other people’s discarded treasures.

I sat with him at the Finish Line and had drinks. I also visited him in Penthouse 7, directly above the nightclubs. When the crowds filled the Copa or the Finish Line, you could feel the music through the room: thump, thump, thump. The party downstairs made its presence known upstairs.

Later, Larry moved into Penthouse B.

That room already had a reputation. People said it was haunted, and I didn’t even like going near it. Between Larry’s struggles and my own uneasiness about that room, I feared something would happen. Looking back, that was fear—not knowledge of what lay ahead.

I had been away from the property for a few days. When I returned, the news was everywhere.

They had found Larry.

I was told it appeared he had died in his sleep. I never learned a confirmed cause.

When I think of him now, I remember the man who browsed secondhand stores with me, the conversations we shared, and the kindness that existed alongside his troubles.

There was much more to the Habana than its bars, parties, and penthouses.

Jungle Red was a novelty shop where you could buy gay merchandise, magazines, and items for more private interests. For people exploring a part of themselves they weren’t ready to discuss openly, it offered a place to browse without involving the U.S. Postal Service.

Up a few steps next to the Copa, was a dress shop. Apparently, every respectable gay establishment needed one, and this one offered some impressive selections. If something in the window caught your eye, you asked the attendant at Jungle Red.

Not everyone wanted the pounding music of a nightclub. For those who preferred a quieter evening, there was a martini and piano bar just off the front lobby. It was named the Ledo.

Beside it was a restaurant. Gusher’s. All relating to the Oklahoma Oil Boom. Not the activity taking place at the hotel. I remember the eatery as one of the finest around. On weekends, the place stayed packed well beyond its posted closing time, and it remained busy throughout the week.

A large plate-glass window in the dining room looked south toward the main swimming pool and the surrounding rooms. Guests could sit over a meal and watch people making their way along the walkways above and below.

Naturally, those walks acquired a name: “the walk of shame.”

At the Habana, people sometimes accused others of doing exactly what they had done themselves—at least once, and usually more than twice.

Love stories began there. Others ended there. Sometimes, both happened to the same couple.

It could also be the last place you expected to recognize the handsome athlete from your hometown, especially in circumstances he probably wouldn’t have wanted discussed back in Smallville.

People came out at the Habana. Some did so willingly. Others were recognized before they were ready.

Looking back, I remember the laughter, the music, the friendships, and the freedom people found within those walls. I also remember the loneliness some carried with them, even in the middle of a crowd.

For some, the Habana was a place to spend an evening. For others, it became a home.

And for a few, it was where their lives ended.

For many more, it was where they finally began living as themselves.

A glowing neon sign displaying the word 'TRAMPS' in bright red light.

The Habana was known as the largest gay resort in the southwestern United States. Just off the property stood a bar originally called Saddle Tramps. Over the years, the name was shortened to Tramps, but I always preferred Saddle Tramps. You needed a saddle to ride out whatever you rounded up in there.

The drinks were usually liquor mixed with a drop of chaser. Ask for a whiskey and Coke, and you’d get three-quarters whiskey, a squirt of Coke, and then a little more whiskey—just in case the Coke had weakened it.

Within an hour and a half, every person in the joint was a ten.

The night wasn’t over. There was a dance club up the street called Angles where you could get your head cleared. Before going back to Saddle Tramps for another drink. Then you’d end the evening at the Finish Line or the Copa. At closing time everyone would spill over to the Lobby where they would either go to the restaurant or end up in the yard square and watch the walks of shame, if they were not walking it themselves. In all of this it was a peaceful event. If trouble makers showed up, a group of bears would take care of them. Escorting them off the property. Of course as security, we’d watch to make sure nothing got out of hand.

It was a different time and life was experiencing change. Today, the hotel has changed ownership. There is a book being written on this period. Which I have given written information about the times to the person writing it. I hope those memories live on. Because it was one hell of good time.

A signature of 'Benjamin Groff' accompanied by attribution to Benjamin Groff and GroffMedia, including a website link and copyright information for the year 2026.

Border Wall Dispute Raises Questions About Public Safety and Local Resources

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

— Imagining Will Rogers weighing in from the grave…

By Benjamin Groff II GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

October 12, 2026


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signature of Benjamin Groff with attribution and copyright information.

Morning Coffee: Who Should Remain on the Friends List?

A friends list should not require complete agreement. The better question is not whether someone thinks like us, but whether they can disagree while still treating others with dignity.

By Benjamin Groff II GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

September 22, 2026


Two smartphones beside two coffee cups on a wooden table
Two smartphones rest beside coffee cups in a warmly lit, relaxed workspace.

This weekend, Steve and I found ourselves discussing a modern-day question: Who should we remain social media friends with?

It’s the first day of fall, so you know what that means: seasonal cleaning! Grab the broom and dusting cloth, clear away yesterday’s dust, and make room for everything this new season may bring.

Some of our online friends are people we know personally. Others entered our lives professionally. Some are kinfolk—and, as everyone knows, you do not get to choose your kinfolk. You simply learn which subjects should never be discussed at Thanksgiving.

Then there are the people we have never met. By every traditional definition, they are strangers. Yet, through years of comments, photographs, birthday wishes and shared stories, some of them have become more thoughtful and dependable than people we once saw every day.

Our friends lists also contain a few hangovers from our school years. Some go all the way back to kindergarten, while others joined us somewhere between high school and our last stop in higher education. There are former coworkers, old neighbors, distant cousins and people we once knew well but now recognize primarily by their profile pictures.

Together, they make up this grand and rather peculiar collection called a “friends list.”

The question Steve and I discussed was whether the things these people post could affect how others see us. Does remaining connected to someone suggest that we agree with everything that person believes?

Suppose a distant social media friend—someone we have never met—announces that they are against oxygen. Suddenly, the rumor begins circulating that Ben and Steve want people to stop breathing.

That would be the furthest thing from the truth. We want almost everyone to continue breathing.

But social media does not leave much room for careful distinctions. A friendship, a “like,” or even a silent connection can sometimes be interpreted as an endorsement. People may assume that because someone appears on our friends list, we approve of everything that person says.

That brings us to the difficult part: Who stays, and who goes?

Should one negative political post be enough to unfriend someone? Probably not. Most of us have had a bad day, written something too quickly or allowed frustration to speak before good judgment arrived.

Disagreement alone is not necessarily a reason to end a friendship. If someone dislikes watermelons, for instance, I might question their judgment—but I would not immediately remove them from my life.

However, if they begin posting that people who eat watermelons are destroying America, should be denied medical care and ought to be rounded up before the next family picnic, then we have moved beyond a harmless difference of opinion.

There is a difference between disagreeing with people and demeaning them.

Someone may disagree with our politics, our religion, our marriage or the way we live our lives. They have that right. But we also have the right to decide what behavior we will welcome into our personal space.

A friends list should not require complete agreement. If it did, most of us would eventually be left talking only to ourselves—and even then, I occasionally disagree with myself.

The better question may not be, “Does this person think like me?” It may be, “Does this person treat others with basic dignity?”

Can they disagree without becoming cruel? Can they discuss an issue without insulting entire groups of people? Do their posts contribute something worthwhile, or do they exist mainly to provoke fear, anger and division? When they discover that something they shared was false, do they correct it—or simply move on to the next falsehood?

Those questions tell us much more about a person than whether they vote the same way we do.

There is also a difference between making a mistake and establishing a pattern. One thoughtless post can be forgiven. A steady stream of hatred, personal attacks and deliberate misinformation becomes a choice.

At that point, unfriending someone is not necessarily an act of punishment. It may simply be an act of housekeeping.

We clean our homes by deciding what belongs inside them. Perhaps we should occasionally do the same with our social media spaces.

That does not mean everyone who irritates us must be shown the door. Social media platforms usually provide quieter choices. We can unfollow someone without ending the connection. We can mute a page, hide certain posts or simply continue scrolling.

Not every disagreement requires a courtroom, a family feud or a public announcement beginning with the words, “I am cleaning up my friends list.”

Sometimes the healthiest response is simply to stop giving someone our attention.

Steve and I did not establish a complicated set of rules. We did not begin working down the alphabet, judging every person from childhood onward. Instead, we came back to something much simpler.

We can remain connected to people who disagree with us. We can even learn from them. But we do not have to provide an audience for cruelty, hatred or the deliberate humiliation of others.

Friendship should leave room for differences. It should not require us to surrender our peace, compromise our values or remain silent while others are treated as less than human.

So, who should remain on the friends list?

Perhaps the people who remind us that there is still room in this world for conversation, laughter, kindness and the occasional disagreement over watermelon.

As for oxygen, Steve and I remain firmly in favor of it.

Since it is the first week of fall, we are doing a little seasonal cleaning around here—dusting off a few stories that deserve another moment in the light. You will notice as you read this weeks stories there will be a few cleaning tips sprinkled about as you read. ;-)

Have another cup of coffee—and please, continue breathing.


By Benjamin Groff II GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

——       Who should remain on our social media friends list? The people who disagree with us—or only those who know how to disagree without becoming cruel? This Morning Coffee considers friendship, boundaries, watermelons and why Ben and Steve remain firmly in favor of oxygen.

Morning Coffee: The Sausage Patties

Whatever the reason, I’ll be back next weekend. Our waitress can probably write down my order now.


By Benjamin Groff II GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026


Every weekend, usually Saturday or Sunday and sometimes both, we visit the same local restaurant. Our waitress looks for us. By the time we settle into a booth, she knows what I’m having, and our drinks are already on their way.

Three Sausage Patties, three eggs, wheat toast, hash browns, and a bowl of gravy. That is my order. Steve is more complicated. He studies the menu, makes a decision, changes his mind, and studies it again.

My order never changes. There’s comfort in that, especially at the end of a week when everything else seems to have demanded a decision.

I should explain the capital letters. Those Sausage Patties deserve them. They are, as we used to say when I was growing up, to die for. Back then, we said that about all sorts of things. These days, I’m happy just to get up on a weekend morning and go have breakfast.

I think fennel is part of what makes them so good. At least, that’s the word I intend to say. At the restaurant, Steve and I sometimes call it “fentanyl” by mistake. Then one of us catches it, and we both start laughing. Our waitress knows perfectly well what we mean, though I suspect she enjoys watching us try to get the word right.

The mix-up has become part of our weekend routine. I can forget the name of the seasoning halfway through a sentence, but I never forget how those patties taste. By midweek, I’m already looking forward to their return performance.

Of course, the sausage alone wouldn’t make this our place. Our waitress remembers us. Steve gets all the time he needs with the menu. I get to sit across from him while our breakfast arrives, knowing that for a little while, there is nowhere else we need to be.

It’s a simple pleasure. That may be why I keep coming back to it.

Next weekend, Steve will open the menu and consider his options. Our waitress will look at me, pick up her pen, and smile. She already knows. And if I happen to mention the wrong herb again, I know she’ll know what I mean. Her name? Christin-a.



By Benjamin Groff II GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

Morning Coffee ––– What Is a Joppler?

Joppler — noun. creator Benjamin H. Groff II

By Benjamin Groff II GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

September 17, 2026


What Is a Joppler?

A diabolical person who can begin by telling you to click on a link and, within minutes, have you wondering why somebody is lying on the floor asking to be tasered, handcuffed, arrested, and possibly recruited into the United States Marine Corps.

###


I created the word myself.

Medieval jester juggling three balls before an amused crowd
While you might imagine a jester, this subject is dressed in a three piece suit and tie. Ready to take you for all you have!

A joppler begins innocently enough.

Someone says, “Click on the link.”

You click.

That is your first mistake.

Because a joppler does not simply lead you from Point A to Point B. A joppler takes Point A, throws Point B out the window, backs over Point C, and somehow arrives at Point Q without anybody noticing how you got there.

Imagine somebody volunteering to be tasered.

They lie down on the floor because they want to know what it feels like. Then apparently one tasering is not enough. They want another one. Stronger this time.

PING!

Again.

PING!

Perhaps they find the person holding the Taser attractive. Now we have introduced an entirely different problem.

Next comes the role-playing.

“Arrest me.”

So they get handcuffed.

Then, naturally, they begin fighting the arrest they specifically requested five seconds earlier.

Now they have earned another tasering.

PING!

At this point you may be asking:

What in the hell does any of this have to do with clicking on a link?

Exactly.

You have been joppled.

I started by talking about clicking a link. Then I moved you into Tasers, handcuffs, role-playing, resisting arrest, electrical impulses and possibly questionable romantic attraction.

Your original train of thought is gone.

Your brain has been joppled.

And I can keep going.

Now we’re talking about getting older.

Except we’re not really talking about getting older, because suddenly you’re thinking about serving your country. Maybe becoming a Marine.

Except the war in Afghanistan is over.

So now we’re talking about Afghanistan.

Which takes us back to September 11, 2001.

But September 11 was twenty-five years ago.

Soon, an enormous portion of the American population will have been born after 9/11. For them, it will not be a personal memory at all. It will be history—something they learned about from parents, teachers, documentaries and old television footage.

And now stop.

Think about where we started.

Click on the link.

That was it.

A link.

And somehow we traveled from clicking a link to Tasers, handcuffs, Marines, Afghanistan, September 11 and the passage of an entire generation.

That is the work of a joppler.

A joppler can begin a conversation on one subject and eventually deposit you at the end of another subject that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject you thought you were discussing in the beginning.

And the worst part?

You usually don’t realize you have been joppled until it’s already over.

So the next time somebody says:

“Click on this link…”

Be careful.

You may be dealing with a joppler. At the end, you will be told that you agree with them. And you will believe them. Because if you don’t you’re wrong. And if you don’t agree. The people around you, won’t like you. If you disagree with them, then you will be a bigger joppler. So you best be a little joppler and just shut up and just nod your head and go along. That is how this country so joppled!

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

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

June 30, 2026


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

https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-4/XFKTzEzZ1bip32itk4W5XFIP_PwAjw-qhLj2EnqapCatZVEZvTsULp_KdEsO3o0cAp6X8kuwg0a3OFf106ABW3f30wfZZpwTQA23DB7_ID-kp12pmd0ebig7rf8FtcWpzSP2wqXTcdQHE_wbcoEmu1X-q4Ku0TuCgfayxRBwM4CbJOG9LQpp-E5neza2R5yO?purpose=fullsizehttps://images.openai.com/static-rsc-4/rvjutFF4tahsHgozJ2Ekh-tBjVk_AmOLjqtjlYfiPMqKqgDHqP-iaUrVePg_wm0y8-TZItoJPRMRXmWX0Y8ZwTpNxwk9PEqZKVVuc3gf1YVr765lKRqYEkgxWluZ_Ja9SBrJFxvDAnjNEiwvqO1hj0WNv2jIbd_xZuBNlWXl-RrOHYGpKR0sOeOxMdxpdzp2?purpose=fullsizehttps://images.openai.com/static-rsc-4/_DzkDyZNXVamFofmDjXifthRCkww1nAD5zhKmF67ABDS-o5D_vr__XJ32EULwhN3w8FTjZPK1sgnOQ5Rz8KyHJxl0MkwmmN56l9nEQCw4tD2-PHcj7dWXGFocMfDbMTw0idYynN3CLl5pwNwDBK1riS9n_hv5v62aF6frYKI2S4O-EBV5zOkLns8k0UmO2vG?purpose=fullsize

There are moments when people ask a sincere question:

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

For many people, the answer is simple.

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

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

The physical wounds will heal.

The fear takes longer.

Juan Olvera told reporters:

“I literally thought I was going to die.”

Think about that sentence.

Not in a war.

Not while committing a crime.

Not while threatening anyone.

But simply because he was gay.

And that is why Pride exists.


The rainbow flag is not a declaration of superiority.

It is not a political party.

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

It is a signal.

It says:

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

For some people, Pride is a parade.

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

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

They remember being denied housing.

They remember police raids on bars.

They remember the terror of the AIDS epidemic.

And yes, they remember the beatings.

The rainbow became a symbol because symbols matter.

Flags matter.

They tell stories.

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

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

Neither promises perfection.

Both represent hope.


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

It is offered as a reminder.

Behind every Pride flag is a person.

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

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

No one should fear violence because of who they are.

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

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

That is not a gay issue.

That is a human issue.

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

There will continue to be rainbow flags.

There will continue to be people saying:

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


Benjamin Groff II
Groff Media © Truth Endures

 

The United States 2017 to 2026 – What Has Changed?

Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026


America Then and Now: From Trump’s First Day to May 13, 2026

American flag artwork illuminated with blue, red, and white lights featuring cracks

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

The Bible, Abortion, and the Politics of Selective Morality

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?

© Benjamin H. Groff II — Truth Endures / benandsteve.com


Open antique law book with ornate initial, brass balance scale, quill, and inkpot on wooden table
GroffMedia©TruthEndures 2006

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.

Desert camp with large tents, stone tablets inscribed with ancient symbols, and people walking around at dusk.

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.


Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

The Growing Questions Surrounding Missing Scientists, National Security, and America’s Crisis of Trust

Scientists Vanish. Questions Grow. America Watches.

By Benjamin Groff II
Groff Media © Truth Endures


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.




Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

When the Game Never Stops: Winning Elections in an Era of Constant Disruption

If the rules keep changing, the answer isn’t outrage—it’s preparation.

© Benjamin H. Groff II — Truth Endures / benandsteve.com


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.


Stop Reacting. Start Anticipating.

Misinformation thrives in confusion.

Delayed results? Suspicion.
Legal disputes? Distrust.
Unfamiliar procedures? Panic.

The solution isn’t just correcting false claims after they spread—it’s preparing people before they do.

Explain the process.
Set expectations.
Tell the truth early, clearly, and often.

Because when people understand what’s happening, they’re far less likely to be manipulated by what isn’t.


Courts Matter—But They’re Not the Strategy

Yes, the courts are part of modern elections.

They always have been.

But they are not a substitute for winning.

A courtroom can delay an outcome. It can shape a rule. It can even decide a narrow dispute.

But it cannot replace the fundamental truth of democracy:

Votes still matter more than arguments.


Local Matters More Than You Think

One of the strengths—and frustrations—of the American system is how decentralized it is.

There isn’t one election. There are thousands.

And that cuts both ways.

It means no single disruption can take down the entire system.
But it also means the work has to be done everywhere—not just at the top.

County clerks matter.
Election workers matter.
State officials matter.

Ignoring those roles is how systems get shaped without you.


Let’s Be Clear About Something

Not every delay is corruption.
Not every challenge is sabotage.
Not every rule change is an attack.

Some of it is simply the messy, imperfect reality of a democratic system under pressure.

And if everything is treated like a crisis, then nothing is understood clearly.

Credibility matters.
Facts matter.
Clarity matters.

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.


Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

They Call It Help. Others Call It Control. Louisiana’s Homeless Bill Raises Hard Questions.

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And that is a line worth watching.

Closely.


© Benjamin H. Groff II — Truth Endures / benandsteve.com

Selective Outrage Is Killing Accountability

The Rules Change—Depending on Who Breaks Them

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures


When allegations hit Eric Swalwell, the reaction is immediate.

There isn't the same ethics being applied.
Eric Swalwell Hit With Double Standard

Cameras. Headlines. Demand

Resign. Investigate. Answer now!

That’s the system working—at least on the surface.

But step back—and the pattern becomes impossible to ignore:

The standard isn’t consistent. It’s conditional.


The Timeline They Don’t Want Side by Side

2026 — Swalwell

  • Allegations surface
  • Immediate national attention
  • Calls for resignation begin almost instantly

👉 Expectation set: Allegations alone demand action.


2024–Present — Matt Gaetz

  • Federal investigation tied to serious allegations
  • No charges filed; denies wrongdoing
  • Remains in office, politically active

👉 Reality: Survived the storm.


2025–Present — Cory Mills

Cory Mills
Cory Mills
  • Ethics scrutiny reported
  • Limited sustained national pressure
  • No decisive congressional action

👉 Reality: Investigation without urgency.


2022 — Tom Reed

  • Accused of misconduct
  • Resigned

👉 Reality: Consequence matched expectation.


Recent Cycles — Tony Gonzales

  • Personal controversy surfaces
  • Steps away politically
  • Little sustained national reckoning

👉 Reality: Quiet exits don’t trigger loud accountability.


Go Back Further—The Pattern Was Already There

This isn’t new. It didn’t start this year. Or last year.

Dennis Hastert

  • Long after leaving office, it was revealed he had sexually abused minors decades earlier
  • Served prison time—but only after financial crimes exposed the cover-up

👉 Reality: Power delayed accountability for years.


Mark Foley

  • Resigned in 2006 after explicit messages to congressional pages
  • Questions followed about who knew—and how long it was ignored

👉 Reality: Action came—but only after exposure became unavoidable.


Roy Moore

  • Accused of sexual misconduct involving minors during his campaign
  • Lost election—but retained strong political backing

👉 Reality: Allegations alone didn’t collapse support.


Jim Jordan

Jim Jordan
  • Accused by former athletes of ignoring abuse while a wrestling coach
  • Denied wrongdoing
  • Remains in Congress with no formal consequence

👉 Reality: Allegations alone didn’t trigger removal.


Now Step Back and Look at It Clearly

CLICK ON IMAGE FOR REPORT

Across years. Across headlines. Across parties.

The pattern repeats:

  • Some accusations trigger immediate political collapse
  • Others linger, fade, or get absorbed into the noise
  • Some careers end overnight
  • Others continue uninterrupted

Same system. Different outcomes.


The Truth Voters Are Starting to Accept

This isn’t about one politician.
It isn’t even about one party.

It’s about a system where:

  • Outrage is selective
  • Pressure is strategic
  • Accountability is inconsistent

And once people see that clearly, something changes.

They stop reacting to the scandal.

They start questioning the system behind it.


Accountability Cannot Be Conditional

If the rule is:

“Allegations demand immediate scrutiny and consequences”

Then that rule must apply:

  • Every time
  • To everyone
  • Without exception

Because the moment it doesn’t—

It stops being accountability.


Final Word — The Line That Matters

This isn’t about defending Eric Swalwell.

It’s about whether the same fire lit under him
burns just as hot under everyone else.

Because if it doesn’t—

Then what we’re watching isn’t justice.
It isn’t integrity.
And it sure isn’t leadership.

It’s performance.
It’s protection.
It’s power deciding when truth matters.


Truth Endures

Not because politicians defend it.
Not because parties protect it.

But because, eventually—
people see it for themselves
!

There should be resignations coming from more than just Democrats!

Truth Endures!


© Benjamin H. Groff II — Truth Endures / benandsteve.com Groff Media

Oklahoma’s Political Shift Isn’t Just Numbers — It’s the Loss of Local Control

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026


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.

Carl Albert

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!


When the Press Begins to Look Over Its Shoulder

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.

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures


This week I made the next announcement:

“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”

  1. Hazel Avatar

    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.

    1. Benjamin Avatar

      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.

      1. Hazel Avatar

        Yeah. Hopefully some are courageous enough to speak and make a change. We’ll never know. My pleasure, Benjamin. Healing vibes to you.

What you leave today becomes someone’s answer tomorrow.

The Day Jimmy Carter Came To Town

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!

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

3–5 minutes

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.

Marriage Rights at the Crossroads: A Nation in Reflection

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.


© Benjamin H. Groff II — Truth Endures / benandsteve.com

What Is Antifa And Do You Belong To It?

3–4 minutes

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.


By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

The Island – A Serialized Dystopian Story * Chapter Ten 

1–2 minutes

Haven’s Reach: The Choice

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 Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

The Island – A Serialized Dystopian Story * Chapter Four 

1–2 minutes

Haven’s Reach: Whispers in the Dark

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.


By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

Rethinking the National Guard: A Return to Local Focus

6–9 minutes

What if the National Guard went “back to basics”? 

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.

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.

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 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:

  • Engineering & rebuilding skills (bridges, roads, communications).
  • Medical readiness to help hospitals in crises.
  • 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.


By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 

The Consequences of Women Losing Voting Rights

2–3 minutes

What If Women Lost the Right to Vote Today?

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.


By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 

GARY INDIANA CRIME RATES HIGHER THAN CHICAGO

4–5 minutes

Indiana Governor Michael Braun

Why Isn’t Indiana Governor Mike Braun

Being Given National Guard Help?

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.


  • 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

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.


CityViolent Crime (per 100,000)Property Crime Odds
Gary, IN~1,1801 in 35 victims
Chicago, IL673.5Lower than Gary’s rate

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.

  • 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 137 Reddit.
  • Citywide Crime Index: Gary’s total crime rate runs at about 59.75 incidents per 1,000 residents, compared to roughly 33.37 nationally nextdoor.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.

  • 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 35 NeighborhoodScoutAreavibes.

  • 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

LocationViolent Crime RiskProperty Crime RiskNotes
Gary, IN1 in 112 (high risk)1 in 35 (high risk)Among “most dangerous” cities in Indiana
Chicago, ILLower individual riskSlightly lower than GaryLarger scale but safer per capita
Lake County, INSlightly above averageMixedCrime concentrated in urban pockets like Gary

  • 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.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

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.

The Undermining Of Civil Rights In 2025

2–4 minutes

QUESTION FROM READER

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

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  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)
  6. Shifting Federal Civil Rights Enforcement
  7. 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.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 

THE TRUTH IS THE HARDEST THING TO LOOK AT AND ACCEPT

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.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 

What Will Happen If PLANS To End Social Security Happens?

3–4 minutes

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:


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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 

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.

Read the Letter:  Commissioner Bisignano’s Open Letter to the American People

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. 

Read the Proclamation: Presidential Proclamation: 90th Anniversary of the Social Security Act

There Are Different Ways To Preserve America’s Freedom – We Are Taught Lessons From The Past

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.

We Shall Come Rejoicing Marrying Only The He’s And The She’s

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 Truth Endures©

1–2 minutes

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.

Challenges and Resilience in the LGBTQI+ Community Today –– Beyond PRIDE With A New Pope!

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 Truth Endures©

5–7 minutes

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: A Silent Crisis

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)

Healthcare Access: Barriers and Disparities

Photo by Celia Daniels on Pexels.com

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)

Legislative Challenges: A Double-Edged Sword

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)

Community Initiatives: Resilience and Support

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)

Conclusion: A Call to Action

Photo by Gotta Be Worth It on Pexels.com

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.

#ProtectTransKids #LGBTQHistory#SouthernBaptistSissies#HopeIsARevolution#TransRightsAreHumanRights#FaithNotFear 


A NEW POPE

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.

Sources – References:

Favicon
Favicon
Favicon
Favicon
Favicon

 Senator Ed Markey.  CT Insider HRC+1HRC+1 Axios+2Center for American Progress+2KUNC+2HRC+6Teen Vogue+6The Trevor Project+6.  Center for American Progress. euronewsThem+1Center for American Progress+1. The Trevor Project+4American Art Therapy Association+4Brittany Bate+4.

Grassroots Movement Transforms American Politics

GROFF MEDIA 2024© TRUTH ENDURES IMDBPRO

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©s

3–4 minutes

The Grassroots Movement for Economic and Political Justice

Arizona Rally March 2025
Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mark a defining moment in American politics. Tempe, Arizona Rally 2025 Groff Media©

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.

Greeley Colorado, Groff Media©

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.

Tucson, Arizona, Groff Media©

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.

Denver, Colorado, Groff Media©

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.

The rallies led by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez signify a pivotal moment in U.S. politics, reflecting widespread dissatisfaction with inequality and a demand for economic justice.
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.

English Translation Below – TRADUCCIÓN AL INGLÉS A CONTINUACIÓN

GROFF MEDIA 2024© TRUTH ENDURES IMDBPRO

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

4–6 minutes

English Translation Below –

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.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/immigration/resources/immigration-resources/#:~:text=Immigration%20Advocates%20Network.%20The%20Immigration%20Advocates%20Network,strengthen%20the%20capacity%20of%20organizations%20serving%20them..

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. 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/immigration/resources/immigration-resources/#:~:text=Immigration%20Advocates%20Network.%20The%20Immigration%20Advocates%20Network,strengthen%20the%20capacity%20of%20organizations%20serving%20them.

If you choose to self deport find the safest route.

Should You Stay on Facebook? Weighing the Pros and Cons

GROFF MEDIA 2024© TRUTH ENDURES IMDBPRO

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

3–4 minutes

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

President Carter’s Memorial Service IN D.C.

GROFF MEDIA 2024© TRUTH ENDURES IMDBPRO

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

2–3 minutes

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.

Highlights from Jimmy Carter’s State Funeral

Sources

People

Trump Doesn’t Stand for Obama but Then Chats with Him as All 5 Living Presidents Reunite at Jimmy Carter’s Funeral

Today

The Sun

Biden gets emotional in Jimmy Carter’s funeral speech as grandson Jason praises 39th prez as nation’s ‘first Millennial’

Today

Reuters

Trump shakes hands with Pence, engages Obama at Carter funeral

Today

Special Air Mission 39: A Tribute to President Carter

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

3–4 minutes

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.”

Quote Reference: Congratulations Jimmy Carter – Bryan Strawser. http://bryanstrawser.com/2002/10/congratulations-jimmy-c/

The Guitar from Jimmy Carter’s Grove

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

3–4 minutes

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: A President’s Quiet Resolve

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

2–3 minutes

Jimmy Carter
– The Carter Center Photo

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
– The Carter 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.

Jimmy Carter: The Country Music President

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

2–3 minutes

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.

Jimmy Carter and the Little Peanut Stand

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

2–3 minutes

Earl Carter and Children

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.

Learn more about Jimmy Carter in photos. Got to the source for photos used in this writing by clicking here.

Parallels Between the Chinese Exclusion Act and Modern Immigration Concerns: Lessons from History –– The Danger Of Losing Immigrants

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

You can also refer to the NPR Story America’s first major immigration crackdown and the making and breaking of the West  for additional insights and related material that complement this story, offering a deeper exploration of the subject.


3–5 minutes

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.

You can also refer to the NPR Story America’s first major immigration crackdown and the making and breaking of the West  for additional insights and related material that complement this story, offering a deeper exploration of the subject.

America at a Crossroads

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

1–2 minutes

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.

What You Can Do Now As An American.

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

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.