political

The Cost of Exclusion: What Happens When Communities Are Pushed Too Far (Repeated Story With Today’s Lense – After D.C. Shooting!)

BenjaminLeave a comment

This Story Originally Appeared On November 1st, 2025. On November 26th a shooting resulted in Washington D.C. It looks as if it resulted from pressure placed on an individual. A person identified from a sect or community. You can read the story connected to that event here. then consider the contents of this story and decide for yourself. It is not difficult to have predicted. More will come.

10–16 minutes

In every generation, the United States stands at a crossroads of its own making. From the outside, our country can look unstoppable. From the inside, we often feel the push and pull of competing values. These include hopes and fears. Beneath the headlines and politics are real people—neighbors, families, workers—trying to live meaningful lives. When pressure builds in a society, it rarely announces itself with fanfare. Instead, it creeps in quietly, showing up as worry, disconnection, or a sense that something familiar is shifting. This story isn’t about sensational headlines but about those quiet pressures—economic, social, and cultural—that can change a nation’s future.

Deportation, Prejudice, and the Risk of History Repeating

When governments treat specific communities as disposable, they create wounds. These often fester into something more dangerous. Today in the United States, many Hispanic families live under the shadow of deportation. They are sometimes sent to countries that are not their place of origin. Worse still, many are denied fair hearings or meaningful access to justice before being removed.

This pattern, though uniquely American in its details, has historical echoes elsewhere.

Lessons from Israel and Its Neighbors

Globally, people are voicing similar worries. Inflation, poverty, unemployment, and corruption rank highest worldwide. Local details differ, yet the underlying pressures on ordinary families are strikingly alike from one country to another.

In the Middle East, decades of restrictive policies have shaped the relationship between Israel and its neighbors. Palestinians have endured travel restrictions, settlement expansion, home demolitions, and barriers to full participation in civic life. While not every individual responds with violence, these systemic grievances have fueled a climate where radical groups gain traction. Street shootings, bombings, and attacks on innocent civilians are, in part, the tragic outcome of exclusion and marginalization.

  • When justice is denied, resentment grows. History shows us what happens when exclusion takes root. Will the U.S. repeat Israel’s mistakes?

The lesson is not that oppression always leads to terrorism. Yet, when large communities feel silenced, denied justice, or stripped of dignity, it becomes easier for extremism to take root.

The American Parallel

For many Hispanic communities in the U.S., there is growing concern that the same cycle begins here. Families who have lived in this country for years are uprooted without warning. Children who know no other homeland are deported to countries where they have no ties. Legal safeguards that should guarantee fairness are often bypassed through expedited removal or administrative shortcuts.

  • Deportation without dignity doesn’t just break families—it risks breaking society. Lessons from abroad show what happens when whole communities are silenced.

The danger is not only humanitarian—it is practical. Alienation breeds resentment. Resentment, left unchecked, can lead to anger that is so strong it erupts in harmful ways. If citizens and residents consistently feel betrayed by the very government meant to protect them, feelings of betrayal grow. Over time, these feelings lead to instability akin to that seen in other parts of the world.

A Cautionary Reflection

The United States faces a choice. It can double down on policies that treat Hispanic people as outsiders. Alternatively, it can recognize that fairness, dignity, and due process are not luxuries—they are stabilizers. By ensuring justice and compassion, the U.S. can protect both its people and its principles.

History reminds us that exclusion never produces lasting peace. Inclusion does. If America forgets this, it risks repeating a painful lesson already written across borders far from its own.

  • Exclusion never creates peace. Inclusion does. The United States must choose which future it wants.

As this report was being prepared on September 10, 2025. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a speaking event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. He was addressing an audience as part of his “American Comeback Tour.” When a gunman, described as wearing tactical gear, opened fire from a nearby building. The event was not just violent in its outcome. It’s now being discussed widely as an example of how political tensions, rising polarization. Public rhetoric can set the stage for tragedy. AP News+3Reuters+3People.com+3

This shooting stands as a stark reminder of what happens when communities feel threatened, unheard, or unfairly treated. When specific policies—like deportations without fair hearings, rhetoric that pits “us vs. them,” or laws that strip rights from people—are merged with public disdain, alienation can grow. As with Kirk’s death, violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It is often preceded by months or years of escalating division, distrust, and dehumanizing language toward some group.

If similar pressures continue—where people feel they are being denied justice. Or they will be forced into exile, or silenced—the risk is not only that isolated individuals will lash out. More of these attacks will spill into public spaces, become more common, and target more people. Charlie Kirk’s shooting is tragic and shocking. Still it also foreshadows a pattern we’ve seen before elsewhere: oppression + exclusion + inflammatory rhetoric = violence.

THE QUESTION NOW FACING THE UNITED STATES

The U.S. be trailing a path? Is government policy and public rhetoric pushing some communities to a breaking point? Exclusion and injustice be more than grievances, becoming catalysts for violence? 

Israel offers a stark example. It shows what can happen when a nation attempts to dominate or control another people or region. Despite decades of military action, surveillance, imprisonment, and harsh policies, the country faces ongoing terrorist attacks. These actions occur within its own borders. History shows that no matter the tactics, attempts to subjugate or marginalize an entire population often breed resentment. Such approaches lead to cycles of violence rather than lasting security.

Recent polling reveals Americans’ top worries focus on daily life basics. These include the economy, healthcare costs, inflation, and Social Security. Economic anxiety has become the leading stress point—and understanding it is key to shaping effective public policy.

In the United States, millions of people belong to the LGBTQI community—transgender, gay, intersex, and beyond. If laws or court rulings increasingly target these groups with discriminatory restrictions or hardships, the effect won’t just be legal. It will erode their existing rights and impact them deeply on a human level. People who feel cornered, threatened, or stripped of dignity often turn to protest, activism, and self-defense. Families, friends, and allies of LGBTQI individuals will stand with them. History shows that when marginalized communities are pushed too far, their collective response grows stronger. They become more determined, whether through the courts, the ballot box, or public action.

  •  There are case studies in why inclusion and fairness matter. Disenfranchisement can occur across many lines. These include ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, or economic status. Prevention starts with recognizing early warning signs. It involves pushing for fairness and empathy. Other groups and individuals will be targeted in this sweeping of Americans’ rights.

1. Immigrant and Refugee Communities Beyond Latin America

People from African nations, the Middle East, or Asia sometimes experience parallel challenges. They face deportation, limited due process, and suspicion tied to their nationality or religion. Policies that reduce refugee admissions, delay asylum processing, or tighten visa rules disproportionately affect them.

2. Religious Minorities

Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, and other smaller faith groups have seen spikes in harassment or targeted legislation. Surveillance, mosque or temple zoning battles, and hate crimes all increase when public rhetoric frames these groups as”others.”

3. Indigenous Peoples

Tribal communities continue to face legal battles over land, water, and sovereignty. Changes to federal protections or environmental rules can undermine their rights. This fuels deep distrust and potential standoffs (for example, Standing Rock and other pipeline protests).

4. People With Disabilities

Budget cuts or shifts in healthcare, accessibility regulations, or education funding can affect people with physical or cognitive disabilities. Without legal protections and enforcement, they risk losing access to accommodations and services they depend on.

5. Women and Reproductive Rights

If policies continue restricting reproductive healthcare and bodily autonomy, many women feel increasingly alienated. This is especially true for those in rural and low-income areas. Such feelings lead to organized protest. It also heightens tensions.

6. Workers in Precarious or Gig Jobs

With unions weakened and worker protections often rolled back, low-wage and gig-economy workers are also vulnerable to systemic neglect. Economic insecurity can create fertile ground for unrest, especially if merged with racial or immigration-related grievances.

On a hot summer’s day, if you stir any of these pots, something unhappy will happen. Similarly, if you keep someone locked out on a cold winter’s day, the outcome will be negative. It used to be the explosive reaction we referred to as Cabin-Fever when someone no longer can take the pressure. When so many groups are pushed to the point of not being capable to handle it. What happens? America already has more firearms than any country in the world. It shouldn’t take much research to realize that becoming Palestine-Israel would be easier than ever. It would also be more violent than people thought.

  • Exclusion never creates peace. Inclusion does. America must choose which future it wants.

There are Americans who are also to be considered part of the LGBTQI community. If laws or Supreme Court rulings turn against the transgender, Gay members, or Intersex community, these laws can cause hardships. Further restrictions can come into their lives. At some point, they and their families, friends, and supporters are going to find ways to defend themselves. 

Yes — beyond the Hispanic and LGBTQI communities already discussed, there are several other groups. Experts and advocates often recognize these groups as vulnerable. These groups are often affected by shifts in policy, public sentiment, or legal rulings. Here’s a quick overview:

How Many Transgender People Have Been Mass Shooters?

This chart shows just how rare transgender or nonbinary mass shooters are in the U.S.—less than 1% of cases compared to an overwhelming majority by cisgender men. It’s a clear reminder that public narratives blaming LGBTQ+ people for mass violence are unsupported by facts.

How many trans shooters are there in real life?

Officially, the short answer: very, very few. Credible databases don’t systematically record gender identity. Still, the best available analyses show well under 1% of U.S. mass shooters have identified as transgender or nonbinary—i.e., only a handful of cases across many decades. Social Sciences and Humanities College+1

A few notes for context:

  • The Violence Project’s long-running database (public mass shootings, 4+ killed) shows hundreds of incidents since 1966. Researchers and fact-checks confirm that transgender perpetrators account for less than 1% of cases. This is in the low single digits in total. The Violence Project+1
  • News reporting that tries to tally specific incidents similarly finds just a few cases. It also cautions that many official datasets code by sex, not gender identity, which limits precision. Newsweek
  • Independent fact-checks conclude that claims of a “rise” in transgender mass shooters are unsupported. The vast majority of mass shooters are cisgender men. Reuters

Bottom line: Exact counts are hard to pin down because of data limitations. The evidence consistently shows that transgender people make up a vanishingly small share of U.S. mass shooters.

“Fewer than ten transgender athletes out of 510,000 NCAA players.

Yet, they’re at the center of a multi-million-dollar political storm.”

This makes sense—transgender people represent a very small part of the population, and their visibility often makes them targets. Out of more than 510,000 NCAA college athletes nationwide, it’s estimated that fewer than ten are openly transgender. Historically, families—including our grandparents and their grandparents—have coexisted with transgender individuals without controversy. Only in recent years have political attacks escalated, turning a once-private aspect of life into a public battleground. These attacks have generated hundreds of millions of dollars. Groups and politicians use transgender people as a wedge issue. They target individuals who are simply trying to live their lives.

What We Know (or Think We Know)

  • According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, about 300,000 youth aged 13–17 recognize as transgender in the U.S. Williams Institute
  • Of those, some studies suggest ~40.7% of transgender high school students play on at least one sports team. Applying that to the population estimate gives around 120,000+ transgender high school student-athletes Williams Institute
  • Nonetheless, when it comes to more specific breakdowns (e.g. how many play in women’s teams, or how many are in college/pro sports), the numbers are much smaller. For example, GLAAD reports that among ~510,000 NCAA college athletes, there are fewer than 10 known transgender athletes GLAAD

Key Takeaways & Limitations

  • Small in relative terms: Tens of thousands of transgender youth join in high school sports. Still, they are still a very tiny fraction of all athletes.
  • Very few at higher levels: At the college or professional levels, the known, openly transgender athletes are very rare (under 10 in the NCAA among all those athletes, per recent reports) GLAAD+1
  • Data gaps: Many sports associations don’t track gender identity carefully. Privacy concerns, inconsistent reporting, and changing eligibility rules make precise numbers hard to nail down.

Exclusion never creates peace. Inclusion does. The United States must choose which future it wants.

Yet even in times of strain, The United States of America greatest strength has always been its capacity to self-correct. Communities do not simply absorb pressure—they also adapt, innovate, and rise to meet challenges. We have the chance now to choose empathy over division, solutions over rhetoric, and inclusion over exclusion. If we remember that the country’s heart beats strongest when its people are treated with fairness and dignity. Then the same forces that threaten to divide us can also become the sparks that unite us. This is not just a warning—it’s an invitation to hope.

This content was originally intended to be posted on September 11, 2025. Due to unfolding events at that time, its publication was postponed until November 1, 2025. The research began weeks before events on September 10, 2025 in Utah. If extra events have occurred since then, this report reflects the level of concern. It highlights the growing sense of unease emerging across the United States.

About the Author:

Benjamin Groff is a former police officer and radio news anchor. He has hosted programs for CNN and ABC News affiliates in Colorado and Wyoming. His career in law enforcement began in 1980 and lasted more than two decades. This gave him firsthand insight into the criminal mind and public safety. Moreover, it provided him with an understanding of the human stories that often go untold. His writing draws on these experiences, blending street-level truth with a journalist’s eye for the bigger picture.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

Marketing to Change Minds

BenjaminLeave a comment
1–2 minutes

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

Marketing to change people’s views isn’t a new concept—it’s one of the oldest tools of persuasion known to humankind. It begins quietly, almost imperceptibly, with the notion that a particular group or sect isn’t “right” for the community. That whisper grows into a chorus, spreading suspicion from one group to the next. Before long, it becomes an orchestrated campaign designed to win favor with the majority.

Sometimes the purpose is simple—boosting sales or swaying public opinion. Other times it’s darker. It aims to destroy a movement or to silence dissent. It can also trample a people beneath the weight of manipulated perception.

The pattern always begins the same way. A subtle warning disguised as concern. A headline. A slogan. A talking point. Then, as the message gains traction, it becomes sharper, more divisive. The targets shift—left or right, religious or secular, it makes no difference. The goal is control.

In the coming months and years, we will see more of this calculated persuasion. This is marketing that doesn’t sell products but ideas. It spreads fear and hate. It will portray immigrants as criminals, minorities as threats, and neighbors as enemies. The tactic is old, but the technology behind it is new—and more potent than ever.

This isn’t confined to one nation. It crosses oceans and borders, infecting democracies and dictatorships alike. It’s a sickness of the mind and spirit, a global contagion that thrives on division.

To resist it, those who are often isolated in their struggles must unite. Civil rights advocates, faith groups, workers, and artists need to see they are part of the same story. Each citizen must realize their cause is connected. Survival now depends on solidarity. Only by coming together can we create a message stronger than the one designed to tear us apart.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

No Virginia, “Immigrants Can’t Get Foodstamps, Welfare Or Free Healthcare”

BenjaminLeave a comment

They Still Have Rights Guaranteed By The U.S. Constitution!

(And a Merry Christmas…)

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

4–7 minutes

With the 2026 U.S. election season soon underway, you’ll hear a significant amount of disinformation. One major strand targets immigrants in a wholly prejudicial way. It treats them as one homogenous group of “illegal” residents. It claims they all take “welfare benefits,” “food stamps,” or “public assistance programs.” These terms are used as triggers to motivate a particular set of voters. This is a tactic well understood by the most bigoted of candidates.

In reality, U.S. federal law places strict limits on non-citizens’ access to most benefit programs. Among the relevant statutes is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. This act sets the baseline framework that governs immigrant eligibility for federal means-tested benefits. (1)

Key Facts

Undocumented immigrants — those who entered without inspection or overstayed visas — are generally ineligible for most federal public benefits. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), people without authorization in the United States can’t access federal public benefits. People who lack authorization in the United States are unable to access federal public benefits. People without authorization in the United States cannot access federal public benefits. Exceptions exist for certain emergency assistance, disaster relief, and non-cash community-level services. (2)

These benefits include major programs. Examples are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or “food stamps”). Another example is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash-assistance program. They also include non-emergency Medicaid. (3)

Lawfully present immigrants, including lawful permanent residents (green-card holders), face further restrictions. Most must wait five years after achieving “qualified immigrant” status before becoming eligible for many federally funded means-tested benefit programs. (4)

Criminal convictions may further affect eligibility. Individuals convicted of a drug–related felony after August 22, 1996 may be barred from receiving SNAP benefits. This is the case in many states. (5)

State-level variation: Federal law sets the baseline. However, individual states may use state funds to extend certain benefits. These benefits are for immigrants who are otherwise ineligible under federal rules. (6)

Quick Facts:
📌 Law: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996
📌 Undocumented Immigrants: Ineligible for SNAP, TANF, and non-emergency Medicaid
📌 Legal Immigrants: Usually face a 5-year waiting period
📌 State Variations: Some states fund limited local programs
📌 Citizen Children: Eligible for benefits if they meet program rules
📌 Exceptions: Refugees, asylees, trafficking victims are exempt from waiting periods

Benefits for U.S. citizen children: A key exception ensures that children born in the U.S. can receive federal benefits, such as SNAP and Medicaid. This is true regardless of their parents’ immigration status, provided they meet all other eligibility requirements. The parents’ immigration status does not disqualify the U.S. citizen child. (7)

Specific exempt categories: Some immigrants are exempt from certain waiting periods or restrictions. These include refugees, asylees, victims of human trafficking, and certain others. (8)

In Summary

The U.S. benefit system places tight limitations on which non-citizens can receive publicly funded assistance. Eligibility depends heavily on:

  • the individual’s immigration status (unauthorized vs. qualified)
  • how long they’ve been residing legally
  • the particular rules of the specific assistance program.

In short: undocumented immigrants have virtually no access to standard federal welfare programs. They also lack access to food-assistance programs, especially if they have a criminal record. Many legal permanent residents must wait years. There are state-funded alternatives and exceptions. However, the broad public claim that “immigrants all use welfare/food stamps” is factually false. This claim serves as a misleading narrative.

Why this matters

When you hear a politician or political advertisement claim that immigrants are draining public benefits, you’re hearing a distorted narrative. It’s a message crafted to provoke emotional responses. It appeals to anxieties. It does not truthfully engage with the specifics of immigration law and benefit eligibility.

Bookmark this post for future reference—especially in the coming campaign months, when such claims will be ramped up. Having the facts on hand helps you call out hyperbole. It separates rhetoric from reality. This keeps the public conversation grounded in truth.

Constitutional Rights of Immigrants

Despite differences in citizenship status, the U.S. Constitution guarantees core rights to all persons within its jurisdiction — including immigrants, regardless of legal status. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect every “person” (not merely “citizens”) from deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Due process of law is required. They also protect from denial of equal protection under the law. The First Amendment also ensures freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly for all. These guarantees extend to everyone on U.S. soil, whether they are citizens, lawful residents, or undocumented immigrants.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed these principles — most notably in Plyler v. Doe (1982). It held that undocumented children are entitled to the same public education rights as others. This is echoed in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which found that indefinite detention of immigrants violated constitutional due process. While immigration status can affect eligibility for government benefits, it does not erase the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

References

  • U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment – Protects all persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
  • U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 – Ensures equal protection and due process for “any person” within the United States.
  • U.S. Constitution, First Amendment – Guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceful assembly to all persons.
  • Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) – Supreme Court ruled that denying public education to undocumented children violates the Equal Protection Clause.
  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) – Affirmed that immigrants, even undocumented, are protected by the Due Process Clause against indefinite detention.
  • Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) – Early Supreme Court case establishing that equal protection applies to non-citizens as well as citizens.

🗳️ Call to Action: Truth Over Talk

In the months ahead, political noise will grow louder, and facts will often take a back seat to fear. Before sharing or believing any claim about immigrants, take a moment to fact-check it. Look for verifiable data. Check reputable sources and legal references. Misinformation thrives when good people stay silent.

Share true information. Challenge falsehoods when you see them.
By doing so, you defend the truth. You also uphold the American promise of fairness and equality under the law.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

Marriage Rights at the Crossroads: A Nation in Reflection

Benjamin1 Comment

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

Winning the Battle for Health, Security, and Equality in America

BenjaminLeave a comment

By Benjamin H. Groff II

3–5 minutes

We are living in a time when critical issues are being tossed around like poker chips in Washington. These include health care, Social Security, disability support, and the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. The game has gotten meaner, the stakes higher, and the players more reckless. But if history teaches us anything, it’s that ordinary Americans can outshine the biggest machines of power. They can outlast them when they work smart and stay focused.

This isn’t about red or blue. It’s about who gets to live with dignity and who doesn’t.

1. Protecting What We’ve Paid For

Let’s start with the basics: Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements—they’re earned benefits. Working Americans paid into them every payday of their lives. Yet, each election cycle, someone in Congress floats the idea of “sunsetting” or “restructuring” them. That’s political code for cutting.

The smart move? Make every elected official—Republican or Democrat—go on record promising no cuts to Social Security and Medicare. It’s a winning issue across party lines because nearly every voter depends on it, or soon will. The average monthly advantage for retirees is about $2,000. You can’t afford to lose that—and neither can your parents.

2. The Health Care Frontline

Medicare drug price negotiations are already law, and they’re starting to bite down on Big Pharma. Those savings need to be expanded and defended. Keep the issue local—talk about your neighbor’s insulin cost, your pharmacy’s long lines, and your doctor’s limited hours. These stories hit harder than any campaign ad.

If you live in a state that still refuses Medicaid expansion, that’s another battle worth fighting. States like Oklahoma and Missouri proved that when citizens put Medicaid expansion on the ballot, it wins—even in conservative territory. It keeps rural hospitals open and saves lives. Simple as that.

3. Disability Rights Are Human Rights

For millions of Americans, especially seniors and people with disabilities, Medicaid is the real safety net. It funds long-term care, home health aides, and community services. Most people don’t realize that these programs face constant threats. This occurs at both the state and federal levels.

It’s time to make disability policy visible again. Discuss the waiting lists. Talk about the family caregivers working without rest. Tackle the closures of group homes that once kept people safe. Every one of those stories is a vote for compassion and common sense.

4. Standing Up for the LGBTQ+ Community

Across the nation, hundreds of anti-LBGTQ+ bills have been introduced under the banner of “protecting children.” But what they really do is threaten the safety and rights of already vulnerable people—students, families, and workers.

The answer isn’t more shouting matches. It’s telling real stories. These are parents who want their trans kid to live without fear. There is a teacher who wants to keep their job. Or a couple wants the same hospital visitation rights as anyone else. When the conversation becomes personal, hearts shift—and politics follows.

5. Building Alliances That Win

You don’t win these battles alone. You build coalitions that surprise people. Seniors and veterans defend Social Security. Small business owners back drug price reform. Nurses and church groups advocate dignity in care. That’s how movements grow—through unexpected allies who realize they’re all fighting for the same thing.

The revisionist thrives on division. A winning strategy thrives on unity.

6. How to Get Loud, Smart, and Effective

  • Use your voice locally. County health boards, school boards, and hospital districts make real decisions about care and coverage. Attend those meetings.
  • Tell your story. A 30-second video of your experience with health care or benefits will reach more people than a dozen speeches.
  • Learn it. Agencies post new rules all the time—public comments matter. Gather friends, go to Regulations.gov, and leave thoughtful, factual remarks. Bureaucrats read them.
  • Stick to clear messages:
    • “Protect what we’ve paid for.”
    • “Keep care close to home.”
    • “Freedom to make personal medical decisions.”
    • “Dignity for every family.”

7. The Bottom Line

The fight for affordable health care, strong social programs, and equal rights isn’t about party loyalty—it’s about survival. You can’t eat ideology, and you can’t pay for prescriptions with political slogans.

The people who built this country deserve to live out their years in peace, not fear. The next generation deserves to inherit something more significant, fairer, and more human.

That’s how we win. We don’t hate what’s broken. Instead, we protect what still works. We fight like hell to fix what doesn’t.

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

What Is Antifa And Do You Belong To It?

BenjaminLeave a comment
3–4 minutes

ANTIFA BACKSTORY

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 Eight

Benjamin2 Comments
1–2 minutes

Haven’s Reach: The Spark

It happened on a rainless night in early winter. The Council had banned music in the public square, but a child’s voice broke the silence. A boy no older than ten sang a lullaby his grandmother had taught him, his voice rising above the wind. For a moment, the crowd froze in fear. Then another joined. And another. Soon, the plaza filled with song.

The guards stormed in, batons raised, but the people didn’t scatter. They sang louder. The air trembled with a sound that was part hymn, part rebellion. Harper, standing among them, felt her chest swell. For the first time since Eli’s disappearance, she felt less alone.

The spark was not fire or violence—it was courage in harmony. By dawn, the Council declared the singers enemies of Order. But they had already lit something no decree extinguished.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

The Island – A Serialized Dystopian Story * Chapter Three

Benjamin4 Comments
1–2 minutes

Haven’s Reach: The First Rules

The island had been buzzing with a quiet energy. Families were settling into huts near the shoreline. Farmers had begun turning fertile soil into gardens. Fishermen reported an abundance of food from the sea. For a brief time, it felt like paradise was within their grasp.

But no paradise, it seemed, live without Order.

The elected leader, Brant Harrow, stood on a makeshift platform in the town square. His voice carried over the crowd like the tide: calm, confident, and commanding.

“We are a community now,”

He declared, “and no community can survive without rules. These rules are not punishment, but protection. They will guide us. They will keep Haven’s Reach strong.”

The first rules were simple enough: no theft, no violence, no waste. At first, the people welcomed them. After all, who can argue against peace, honesty, and thrift? 

Yet Brant added one more: 

“All voices must flow through the Council before being spoken to the community. This ensures unity.”

Some shifted uneasily at that, but most nodded. They wanted peace. They wanted Order. And Brant gave them just that—or so they believed.

That night, lanterns glowed along the shoreline as fishermen mended their nets. Farmers laughed over bowls of stew. Children ran between the huts, playing games under the moonlight. The air was filled with a fragile joy.

But inside his quarters, Brant sat with a small group of men. 

“It begins here,” 

He told them. 

“Control the speech, control the thought. The rest will follow.”

Haven’s Reach was still blissfully unaware. It took its first quiet step toward becoming something far different. It was unlike the dream its people had imagined.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

The Island – A Serialized Dystopian Story * Chapter Two

Benjamin4 Comments
3–4 minutes

Rules for a Perfect Island

The first year on Haven’s Reach flew by in a haze of construction and cooperation. Houses multiplied along the beaches. Farmers coaxed green shoots from the dark volcanic soil. Randall Crane’s speeches echoed over bamboo loudspeakers in every settlement. His message was always the same: “We are building something the world will envy.”

At first, people agreed. The council meetings were spirited yet polite, with neighbors sharing ideas and coconuts. But as the population grew, so did friction. Disputes over fishing rights, building permits, and clean water began to flare up. Crane’s solution was to create The Harmonies — a set of “guiding rules” posted on hand-painted boards throughout the island.

The Harmonies looked harmless enough:

  • Respect your neighbor.
  • Keep your area clean.
  • No outside media without approval.
  • Dress in community-appropriate attire for public events.

Most residents shrugged off the changes. After all, they had voted for Crane. But a few quietly asked why a paradise needed rules about newspapers or clothing colors. Crane’s answer was reassuring, almost fatherly:

 “Order now means freedom later.”

Meanwhile, Crane’s temporary overseers quietly expanded. What began as a handful of volunteers became a uniformed Steward Force, assigned to “help” with compliance and “resolve” disputes. They wore sky-blue jackets and smiled often, but their presence changed the feel of the markets and beaches.

By the time the first festival arrived, everyone had noticed the difference. The music still played. Torches still flickered under the palms. Yet, eyes darted toward the Stewards. People were checking for disapproval. Without realizing it, Haven’s Reach was slowly stepping from a dream into something else.

There was another problem. Almost all those who relocated there had signed a contract. They were committing to ten years of service on the island. If they left for any reason, they would lose all their investments. This included property, banking accounts, and any holdings invested in the government. The contract included that if illness required them to leave the island. Yes, the contract was unforgiving, even for the survivors of the dead. 

By the second year, Haven’s Reach felt less like a community project and more like a company town. The Harmonies had been revised into a formal code. It was called The Charter of Unity. It is now distributed in little booklets stamped with Randall Crane’s signature and the island’s crest. Most people tucked them into pockets like good-luck charms. Yet, a few began to notice how many pages dealt with “acceptable behavior.”

Crane’s speeches became less about freedom and more about “protecting our way of life.” The Steward Force expanded again, adding patrols to docks and market squares. At first, they were only “checking in.” Then, they began quietly recording names. They noted those who grumbled too loudly about water rations, building zones, or the newly instituted curfew bells.

A subtle yet unmistakable social pressure began to creep in. Neighbors hesitated before speaking. Vendors checked who was listening before discussing shortages. And at community gatherings, some citizens arrived wearing the “approved” island-blue shirts. Those who didn’t wear them were ushered to the back.

It wasn’t only about rules. The island’s media center, once a hub of news and music from around the world, now played only “local” content. The official explanation was that outside broadcasts were “unverified” and “destabilizing.” At first, few noticed. One morning, a popular journalist was no longer at the market. The rumor was they had “relocated to another settlement.” No one really knew.

Yet, on the surface, Haven’s Reach still looked idyllic. Palm trees swayed. Children played along the beaches. Gardens bloomed under the volcano’s shadow. The illusion held — but for how long?

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

The Island – A Serialized Dystopian Story * Chapter One

BenjaminLeave a comment
2–4 minutes

Arrival on Haven’s Reach

Arrival on Haven’s Reach
The Island

It started as a dream, or at least that’s how the people remembered it. Scattered across the globe, 100 million souls were united by frustration with their governments. Yearning for a fresh start, they pooled their resources to find an untouched island deep in the South Pacific. Satellite maps showed a teardrop of lush green, ringed with beaches and hidden coves. They named it Haven’s Reach, because it promised a haven — and it was finally within Reach.

At first, everything felt almost magical. The climate was gentle, the soil fertile, and the air clear in a way few remembered from their crowded cities. People camped near waterfalls, planted vegetables along ridges, and built simple homes from bamboo and volcanic rock. There was no central authority; instead, councils of volunteers coordinated the distribution of food and medical supplies. It was as close to utopia as anyone could imagine.

Soon, the newcomers realized they’d need a leader to coordinate large projects, like roads, water treatment, and electricity. Randall Crane emerged from the chaos. He was a silver-haired businessman with a booming voice. His ability to command a crowd was uncanny. He promised fairness, transparency, and freedom. They applauded, relieved to have someone stepping ahead to organize their new society. Crane appointed “temporary overseers” for security and public Order, but few gave it a second thought. After all, they trusted him. This was their new beginning.

There would be no sprawling bureaucracy watching over their every move—no big government, no visible chains of regulation. People would live as they believed life was always meant to be lived. They would “live and let live,” but only so long as it conformed to the Order. This Order was not just a way of thinking. It was a quiet, unyielding code. It was built on God, guns, and a rigid notion of freedom. 

Any “laws” were drawn from sacred texts. For most American and English residents, that meant the Bible. For others, it is the Torah or the Tripitaka, the ancient Buddhist canon. In their minds, all these scriptures whispered the same universal truths. Yet beneath that illusion of harmony, a single doctrine of control waited. It was patient and absolute.

They had arrived and begun their grand experiment with a country of their own. Self-designed to represent their basic needs and oversee their paramount security. These people, in a new land, had started what few in life had ever dared to hope for. They established their own country and a bill of rights. They elected a leader to oversee their needs. This was achieved quickly. They succeeded without ever firing a single shot in protest or against another nation.

A million people invested in their own lives and invested in one another. Most of all, they invested in an island that is now a country. It is led by a person with full power. He can choose to give anything necessary for those living there. Alternatively, he can decide to use the resources just for himself. 

Representatives from each village were elected to represent those populations. They also elected a senator for each sector of the island. This formed two houses of government. Much like the United States has. Given that all these people share a common ideology, the political slant was, of course, mainly conservative. As a result, the elected leader held enormous power without checks and balances.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

October 20th — A Day to Reflect on the Strength of Democracy in a Republic

BenjaminLeave a comment
1–2 minutes

October 20: A Day of Quiet Turning Points

Some days in history roar with drama. Others whisper their significance so softly we almost miss it. October 20 is one of those whispering days. Yet, it carries lessons about resilience. It also teaches about change and the long arc of progress.

On October 20, 1803, the U.S. Senate ratified the Louisiana Purchase Treaty, doubling the size of a young America. It wasn’t just a land deal; it was a leap of faith in a still-unfolding national experiment. The deal shaped the destiny of millions who had not yet been born and transformed how people saw opportunity. That’s one perspective on October 20. It reminds us that big things often start quietly. They are inked onto paper while the world goes about its business.

Photo by Jacob Morch on Pexels.com

Fast-forward to October 20, 1973 — the “Saturday Night Massacre” during Watergate. The Attorney General and his deputy resigned rather than obey President Nixon’s order to fire the Watergate special prosecutor. It was a night of constitutional crisis, but also a night when individuals drew lines they would not cross. In retrospect, it became a defining moment of accountability, integrity, and public trust.

Even in culture, October 20 pops up. It’s the birthdate of artists, athletes, and ordinary people whose work changed lives. It’s also National Youth Confidence Day. It’s a chance to celebrate the courage of young people. They are forging their own paths, as each generation must.

Photo by Monstera Production on Pexels.com

So what does this all mean for us on October 20, 2025? 

Maybe it’s a nudge to honor the quiet decisions. It is about the unsigned papers and the moments of private courage. These shape our futures just as much as public fireworks. Maybe it’s a reminder to invest in tomorrow. Take the risk. Speak the truth. Double down on hope, even when nobody’s watching.

October 20 is not a “holiday” in the traditional sense. It is a hinge day. It is one of those unassuming points on the calendar. History reminds us that the choices we make today become the landmarks of tomorrow.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

Can Your Differences Bring Us Together?

BenjaminLeave a comment
1–2 minutes

What Difference Does It Make?

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

What difference does it really make — who we are or who we love? We accept without question that some people like black hair, others like blondes, and some like redheads. Some are tall, some are short, some are in between. Yet history shows us how quickly an innocent difference can become a target.

Imagine if tomorrow there was an eruption of public hatred toward blondes. They dye their hair to avoid detection. Or if short people were suddenly ostracized, they try to stay inside except during “short hours.” Many people already camouflage parts of themselves—how they speak, dress, or behave—to stay safe in public. But not everyone can change.

That’s what today’s reflection is about: What do we do with differences that can’t be hidden or changed? When does society’s discomfort become cruelty? Should people who can’t “blend in” be cast aside, alienated, or worse? We’re at our best when we challenge these questions. We must remind ourselves that our shared humanity matters far more than our differences.

A Hopeful Call-to-Action

If differences can be used to divide, they can also be used to unite. Every person you meet carries something unique—something you can’t see at first glance. Rather than asking people to blend in or hide, we can create a world where authenticity is safe and celebrated. Each act of kindness is important. Each open conversation contributes to understanding. Each refusal to judge by appearance fosters inclusivity. These are steps toward a society that values humanity over uniformity. The question isn’t how we can camouflage ourselves—it’s how we can build a place where no one needs to.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

Top Financial Worries in 2025: What You Need to Know

BenjaminLeave a comment
2–3 minutes

The Biggest Concern Facing People Today

We live in a world filled with constant change and uncertainty. One theme keeps bubbling to the surface no matter where you look: economic anxiety. Money-related worries top the charts of what keeps people awake at night. These concerns range from the price of groceries to the dream of owning a home.

What the Numbers Say

A Gallup poll from April 2025 found that:

  • 60% of Americans worry “a great deal” about the economy.
  • 59% lose sleep over healthcare costs.
  • 56% are stressed about inflation.
  • Nearly half worry about Social Security and the federal budget deficit.

Globally, it’s no different. According to Ipsos, the leading concerns include inflation (30%), poverty (29%), unemployment (28%), and corruption (26%).

To make matters feel even heavier, 77% of Americans believe it’s harder to buy a home today. They feel it’s more difficult than it was for past generations. That frustration touches nearly every household—young people trying to buy, older adults trying to downsize, and families squeezed in between.

How It Touches Our Daily Lives

Staying together through rough times!

This isn’t just about numbers—it’s about people. Rising rent, higher grocery bills, climbing medical costs—each of these chip away at security. Families cut corners, young people delay milestones like marriage or kids, and many retirees wonder if their savings will last.

Economic stress also spills into mental health, relationships, and communities. When you feel like you’re always one paycheck away from disaster, it’s hard to focus on thriving—you’re stuck surviving.

What You Can Do

While we can’t solve inflation or rewrite housing policy alone, there are small, powerful steps we can take:

The Mysteries of Financial Security.
  • Focus on control: Create a budget and stick to it. Even small wins matter.
  • Cut back strategically: Trim unnecessary expenses, but give yourself permission to keep the things that bring you joy.
  • Tap into resources: Community groups, food banks, and local organizations often have programs to ease the burden.
  • Stay connected: Talking about financial stress reduces shame. You’re not alone.

The Takeaway

The economy, healthcare, inflation—they’re big, intimidating problems. But your response doesn’t have to be. Focus on what you can control. Find support in your community. Remember: sometimes resilience comes not from having more, but from facing less with wisdom, planning, and hope.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

October 10 in History: Key Milestones and Cultural Impact

Benjamin1 Comment
3–4 minutes
Oct 10th a good day for history
How history can pile up on any day of the year.

How did we arrive at our current state? It is a question a lot of people are asking. It didn’t happen all at once. Getting to where we are, was forever in the making. Before anyone alive today was here. There have been people making decisions, some not so great. Life happens. It is a popular saying for some people. And as you can tell through this date in history. October 10th was a great day for history to be set. It doesn’t explain everything that has happened. But it does give one an idea of how history can pile up on any given day.

Here’s an evocative image of a calendar marking October 10. It serves as a visual prompt for a day rich in history. This day includes milestone events and global observances.

October 10: A Crossroads of History, Culture, and Global Awareness

A Time-Honored Legacy

  1. 1845 – U.S. Naval Academy Founded
    • In Annapolis, Maryland, the Naval School opens with its first class of 50 midshipmen. This event lays the foundation for the modern U.S. Naval Academy.(1)
  2. 1911 – Wuchang Uprising Ignites Revolution This bold move sets the stage for the fall of China’s Qing dynasty. It also leads to the emergence of the Republic of China.(2)
  3. 1935 – ‘Porgy and Bess’ Debuts on Broadway
    • George Gershwin’s groundbreaking opera, featuring an all-Black cast, premieres to widespread acclaim.(3)
  4. 1964 – Tokyo Olympics Start: A Global Broadcast
    • Making history, these Summer Games are the first to be televised live worldwide.(4)
  5. 1973 – Vice-President Agnew’s Resignation
    • Spiro Agnew steps down amid tax evasion charges, a rare and dramatic political moment in U.S. history.(5)

October 10, 1973: A Domino That Changed the Presidency

On October 10, 1973, U.S. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigned in disgrace. He pleaded no contest to tax evasion charges. These charges stemmed from a bribery scandal dating back to his time as Maryland’s governor. A sitting Vice President had never stepped down under criminal accusations before. This event sent shockwaves through American politics.

The resignation created an immediate power vacuum. Under the 25th Amendment, passed just six years earlier, President Richard Nixon was capable of nominating a new Vice President. His choice was Michigan Congressman Gerald R. Ford, a steady Republican leader respected across party lines. Congress confirmed him in December 1973, setting in motion a sequence of events no one predicted.

Only months later, the Watergate scandal deepened. Nixon’s credibility unraveled under the weight of investigations into the cover-up of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. With impeachment looming, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974—the first U.S. president to ever do so.

In that instant, Gerald Ford became president. He told the American people in his swearing-in speech: 

“Our long national nightmare is over.” 

Ford’s ascent to the Oval Office was accidental. He became the only person to serve as both Vice President and president without being elected to either office.

Looking back, it’s clear that Agnew’s resignation on October 10 wasn’t just a scandal. It was a turning point in American history. Had he remained Vice President, Agnew—not Ford—would have been next in line when Nixon resigned. The nation, already reeling from Watergate, faced the reality of a president tainted by his own corruption charges. Instead, Ford’s calm, if brief, presidency offered a bridge back to stability.

👉 OCTOBER 10, 1973 stands as proof of how a single resignation reshaped the presidency. It altered the line of succession. It changed the course of American political history.

October 10 is more than a date—it’s a living mosaic of pivotal moments, human emotion, progress, and remembrance. It reflects how history shapes us and how we, in turn, continue writing it.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

Riding The Lie Down The Elevator

BenjaminLeave a comment
1–2 minutes

The Lie in the Elevator

It began as nothing more than a joke. A character on television—smug, ridiculous—coasted down an elevator while declaring something so absurd that everyone laughed. It was too silly to be taken seriously, too exaggerated to live beyond the moment.

But no one challenged it. And why would they? It was just a laugh, a one-liner, a small puff of smoke that seemed harmless. Yet smoke drifts. It clings. The joke became a line repeated at dinner tables, then in office chatter, then across social media. What started as comedy grew like a weed, tangled and persistent.

You knew it was a lie. You knew from the very beginning. But saying something meant being the one to ruin the joke, the one to argue when everyone else was smiling. It was easier to let it go. Easier to think, Surely this will fade away.

Except it didn’t. The lie ballooned. It threaded itself into conversations, policies, schools, and pulpits. Suddenly your neighbors were quoting it as if it explained the world. Your family repeated it without hesitation. They did not repeat it because they believed it. They found it easier than fighting for the truth.

And now here you are. Watching as the lie isn’t just smoke anymore—it’s a fire, raging and indiscriminate, swallowing millions in its path. The streets fill with people repeating the words that started as a smirk on an elevator ride. And they look to you, because they trust you. Because they think you see what they see.

But you don’t. You know better.

The question is no longer whether the lie is funny. The question is whether you will stand against it now. It is late, but not too late. Otherwise, silence will make you part of it.

What would you do?

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025

The Silence About Straight Shooters

BenjaminLeave a comment
2–3 minutes

Double Standards – Plain Prejudices!

When a massacre occurs, we rush to ask why. We sift through social media posts, interviews, and histories, desperate for something that explains the unexplainable. But what’s telling is not just the reasons we find—it’s the reasons we don’t look for.

The overwhelming majority of mass shooters in the United States are heterosexual men. That’s not speculation; it’s data. Yet how often do you see headlines dissecting a killer’s heterosexuality as the cause of their violence? How often do pundits rush online? They demand to see if the shooter once posted about a girlfriend or wore a wedding ring. They use that as “proof” that straight men are dangerous by design. The answer is simple: never.

And yet, when a shooter identifies as LGBTQ+, or is even rumored to, it suddenly becomes fair game for speculation. Sexuality or gender identity—factors with no proven connection to violence—are treated as the smoking gun. It’s as if identity itself becomes a scapegoat, a convenient villain for people already inclined to mistrust it.

This double standard reveals a lot about our cultural biases. Straight people are allowed complexity. They can be troubled, mentally ill, politically radicalized, or angry at the world. They can also be a hundred other things. But LGBTQ+ people are flattened into caricatures, their entire identities blamed for tragedies they commit. Violence is driven by opportunity, ideology, and access to weapons. It is also driven by often untreated pain—not by who someone loves or how they define themselves.

Maybe the question isn’t why people commit atrocities. Instead, we should ask why we frame some people’s motives through the lens of prejudice. Meanwhile, we let others keep their humanity. Until we answer that honestly, we’ll keep mistaking bigotry for truth—and keep missing the real reasons behind the violence.

About the Author:

Benjamin Groff is a former police officer and radio news anchor. He has hosted programs for CNN and ABC News affiliates in Colorado and Wyoming. His career in law enforcement began in 1980 and lasted more than two decades. This gave him firsthand insight into the criminal mind and public safety. Moreover, it provided him with an understanding of the human stories that often go untold. His writing draws on these experiences, blending street-level truth with a journalist’s eye for the bigger picture.

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 

Rethinking the National Guard: A Return to Local Focus

BenjaminLeave a comment
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.

Regular Role of the National Guard

Traditionally, the National Guard is a reserve part of the U.S. Armed Forces with a dual state and federal mission. Its primary duties include:

  • Disaster response: helping with hurricanes, floods, wildfires, tornadoes, and other natural disasters.
  • Civil support: assisting with search and rescue, law enforcement support, and humanitarian aid.
  • Community protection: maintaining order during emergencies like riots or public unrest (when activated by a governor).
  • Military readiness: training to serve as backup for overseas missions if federally activated.

Current Use vs. Regular Use

In recent years, the Guard has been used much more often as a deployable military force nationwide and abroad. Instead of focusing mainly on disaster relief and state emergencies, units have often been:

  • Sent overseas for long deployments (Iraq, Afghanistan, and other global missions).
  • Deployed domestically for extended periods to reinforce border security.
  • Called into action for large-scale protests or high-profile events (sometimes more as a security force than a disaster-relief one).

This “running about the country” role shows the impact of federal activation. It often overrides the state-level, community-first role the Guard was created for.

If They Were Not Used in This Way

If the Guard were not being tasked so heavily with nationwide or military-style deployments, they would be more focused on:

  • Local readiness involves staying in their communities and training for natural disasters and emergency responses.
  • Rapid-response teams: being first on the ground for wildfires, floods, and major storms.
  • Community integration: building stronger ties with local emergency agencies, fire, police, and hospitals.
  • Relief from strain: soldiers wouldn’t be stretched between frequent national missions and their civilian lives (jobs, families).

In short, without the current expanded use, the Guard would essentially serve as a state-based safety net. It would not work as a roaming military or quasi-police force.

Back to Basics: Rethinking the Role of the National Guard

The National Guard has long been the “citizen-soldier” force of the United States, built to serve both State and country. In recent decades, its role has changed. It has drifted toward functioning as a national military extension. It is constantly deployed across the country and overseas. What if, instead, the Guard returned to its roots?

1. Local First: Anchored in Communities

At its best, the Guard is a local safety net. Guardsmen live, work, and raise families in the same communities they serve. Units should primarily focus on state-based missions. This focus ensures the Guard would be ready to respond within hours to natural disasters. They would also be prepared for civil emergencies or infrastructure crises. Imagine a Guard that spends more time training with local fire departments, EMTs, and hospitals than on federal deployments.

2. Disaster Response as the Core Mission

Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, wildfires—these are the events that disrupt American lives far more often than foreign conflict. A back-to-basics Guard would prioritize:

  • Maintaining rapid-response disaster teams in every State.
  • Stockpiling equipment is tailored for local threats. This includes boats in flood zones, fire suppression gear in the West, and snow mobility in the North.
  • Conducting community disaster drills ensures that both citizens and Guardsmen are equally prepared.

Units would no longer be pulled away for distant missions. They would focus on being the first and best resource for emergencies at home.

3. Training for Peace, Not Just War

Right now, Guard training often mirrors active-duty military requirements, preparing for combat tours. In a reset model, training would also emphasize:

  • 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 

Finding Common Ground: Building Bridges in Polarized Times

BenjaminLeave a comment
1–2 minutes
Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Finding Common Ground in a Divided Nation

Everywhere we look, the signs of division are clear. Our conversations have turned into shouting matches, our communities into factions, and even the smallest differences into battle lines. A nation divided can’t stand strong. But there is another path. It does not ask us to agree on everything. Instead, it asks us to bring ourselves into spaces that center peace and shared purpose.

The Power of a Centered Community

When we step away from division and enter a group that is centered and peaceful, something remarkable happens. The noise quiets down. Respect returns to the conversation. We start to see each other not as opponents. Instead, we see each other as fellow human beings. We recognize struggles, joys, and hopes that are more alike than different. These kinds of communities create an environment where empathy can thrive—and empathy is the root of unity.

A Call to Unite Around a Common Cause

Now more than ever, we need to reclaim what unites us. Not political slogans, not party lines—but a shared wish for dignity, fairness, and belonging. The call is simple: bring yourself, with open hands and an open heart, to a group that fosters peace. Choose to engage in a way that builds bridges instead of burning them. Let’s unite around the common cause of healing our communities, so that we can heal our nation.

Closing Thought

Division is loud, but peace is stronger. Every voice that chooses compassion over conflict adds weight to the side of unity. The choice begins with each of us—will we contribute to the noise, or to the harmony?

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 

GARY INDIANA CRIME RATES HIGHER THAN CHICAGO

Benjamin1 Comment
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.

Gary, Indiana — Higher Crime Rates Than Chicago

  • Violent crime in Gary is approximately 11.8 per 1,000 residents, or 1,180 per 100,000, significantly above national averages and surpassing Chicago’s violent crime rate of 673.5 per 100,000.ReolinkNiche
  • Your odds of being a victim of violent crime in Gary are about 1 in 112. This is compared to Chicago’s overall violent crime rate.NeighborhoodScout
  • Property crimes are also markedly higher: a 1 in 35 chance in Gary versus substantially lower in Chicago.NeighborhoodScout

Why Gary Stands Out

Gary’s elevated crime levels have been well-documented over the years. These range from a ‘1993 Murder Capital’ billboard warning to recent statistics. Recent data shows some of the highest violence and theft rates in the nation.The TraceMacrotrends
Despite improvements in some categories, Gary remains one of Indiana’s most dangerous cities. It often exceeds Chicago in both violent and property crime rates.

Quick Comparison

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

There Is More To Review

Yes—Gary, Indiana, a smaller city just southeast of Chicago, has higher crime rates than Chicago on a per-capita level. Though Chicago may grab more headlines, Gary’s challenges with both violent and property crime are even more severe.

1. Gary, IN — Highest Crime in Indiana

  • Violent Crime Rate: Gary records approximately 11.8 incidents per 1,000 residents, making it the highest violent crime rate in the state Reolink+1.
  • Property Crime Chance: On an individual level, the chance of being a victim in Gary is 1 in 112 for violent crime. The odds are 1 in 35 for property crime. NeighborhoodScout.
  • Daily Crime Risk: Overall, you face a 1 in 27 chance per year of becoming a crime victim in Gary. Check more on Areavibes.
  • Safety Map Insights: Neighborhood safety varies widely. In central areas, residents face up to a 1 in 67 chance of violent crime. In safer southwestern zones, that drops to 1 in 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.

2. Chicago, IL — Larger Scale, Lower Per-Capita Risk

  • Comparative Crime Index (Gary vs. Chicago):
    • Violent Crime: Chicago reports about 21% more violent crime overall. Still, because of its much higher population, the individual risk remains lower than in Gary BestPlaces.
    • Property Crime: Chicago’s rate is approximately 30% lower than Gary’s  BestPlaces.
  • Detailed Numbers (NeighborhoodScout): The chance of being a victim of violent crime in Chicago is about 1 in 167. In Gary, it is 1 in 112. Property crime risk in Chicago is about 1 in 29, slightly better than Gary’s 1 in 35 NeighborhoodScoutAreavibes.

3. Lake County Overview

  • Lake County averages around 395 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. This figure is slightly higher than national averages near 360 per 100,000. Axios+1Wikipedia+1.
  • Economic Impact: Crime-related costs, including emotional and tangible losses, are significant across the county.

Quick Comparison Table

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

Summary

  • Gary, Indiana, has significantly higher violent and property crime rates—both per-capita—than Chicago. Despite Chicago’s national notoriety, individuals face greater personal risk in Gary.
  • Lake County overall carries elevated crime levels, but the burden is not uniform—it’s concentrated in areas like Gary.
  • Positive note: There are signs of progress, especially in Gary. Proactive policing has reduced violent crime. It has also improved safety initiatives.

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.