The Ballot Scanner and the Bigger Question – What Happened To It After It Was Snatched?

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

June 13, 2026

Trust Is Hard to Build and Easy to Lose

Election equipment is not supposed to become the story.

AI-generated illustrative image (synthography). Individuals, equipment, vehicles, and activities shown are artistic representations intended to accompany reporting on the event and do not depict actual footage, photographs, or verified scenes from the incident.

The votes are supposed to be the story.      

The candidates are supposed to be the story.

The voters are supposed to be the story.

Yet in Maricopa County this week, attention turned to a ballot scanner and the questions surrounding its movement during an election process.

According to reports, county officials are investigating an incident involving a pre-tabulation ballot scanner that was allegedly removed from an election facility, transported to another location, and later returned. County officials have described security footage showing the movement of the equipment, while representatives of the Recorder’s Office argue their employees were acting within their responsibilities. Investigations and court actions are now underway to determine what occurred and whether any policies were violated.

The facts will ultimately be sorted out by investigators and the courts.

But there is a larger issue worth discussing.

Public confidence.

In modern America, elections are no longer judged solely by whether they are conducted properly. They are judged by whether voters believe they were conducted properly.

That may not seem fair to election officials, but it is reality.

The public expects election equipment to remain secure.

The public expects ballots to remain secure.

The public expects clear procedures, documented chains of custody, and transparent explanations when questions arise.

Even actions that may ultimately prove harmless can create suspicion when voters do not fully understand what occurred.

Trust works much the same way.

It takes years to build and only moments to damage.

Maricopa County has spent years at the center of election controversies, investigations, audits, lawsuits, accusations, and political disagreements. Whether justified or not, many voters already approach election news with heightened concern.

That is why every election official, every supervisor, every recorder, and every election worker carries a special responsibility.

Not only must elections be secure.

They must appear secure.

Not only must procedures be followed.

The public must be able to see that procedures are being followed.

Americans do not all agree on politics.

They never have.

But they should be able to agree on one thing:

Every eligible voter deserves confidence that their ballot is handled properly from beginning to end.

The investigation will eventually determine what happened with the scanner.

The larger challenge may be restoring something even more valuable.

Trust.

Because once confidence in the process disappears, every election becomes harder to accept, regardless of who wins.

And that may be the greatest challenge facing American elections today.

If we lose TRUST. And everyones vote is no longer handled in the same manner. So the votes all count as they should. It is important to consider the powers who have swooped into electorial offices, state houses, and federal offices. If they have violated that trust, they do not belong in those positions. They have failed to uphold the most basic of citizen’s right. The right to have their voice be heard, counted, and measured in the same balance as the next citizen. 

The basis for this report originated from a news report found at KPHO

New video has been provided showing the removal of the voting machine. To watch it click here.


Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

The Next Political Shift May Not Be Left or Right

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

June 12, 2026

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

“Do They Expect Me To Believe This?”

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

It never does.

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

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

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

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

Tired of being angry.

Tired of being told to hate neighbors who vote differently.

“God, he’s doing it again!”

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

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

Anger keeps viewers watching.

Fear keeps voters engaged.

Conflict generates clicks.

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

“Again, with that?”

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

History suggests that political pendulums rarely stop at the extremes.

Eventually voters begin looking for stability.

Not excitement.

“AHH! No more pop up political ads!”

Not revolution.

Not constant crisis.

Just stability.

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

Could that happen again?

No one knows.

It just never ends…

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

But one possibility seems worth considering.

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

It may be a movement away from perpetual conflict.

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

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

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

If that happens, the political landscape could change rapidly.

Not because voters changed their beliefs.

But because they changed their priorities.

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

“Please just let me drive to work in peace”

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

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

A movement toward peace, practicality, and common ground.

The future remains uncertain.

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

The question is whether that moment is approaching once again.


 

The One Thing No Political Map Can Control

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

June 10,2026


Why the Future of Democracy Belongs to People, Not Boundaries

~~~~ ### ~~~~

Politicians have spent generations arguing over maps.

ELECTION Year
I Want You To Vote In This Election!

Every decade, after the national census is completed, district lines are redrawn across America. Lawsuits follow. Editorials are written. Citizens attend hearings. Political parties accuse one another of manipulating boundaries for advantage.

The debate is as old as the nation itself.

Yet amid all the arguments over lines, colors, and voting precincts, one reality is often overlooked:

Maps are temporary. People are not.

Throughout American history, those who sought to shape political power frequently focused on geography. But the forces that have transformed America have rarely originated from a mapmaker’s desk.

They came from ordinary people moving toward opportunity.

When millions of Americans headed west in the nineteenth century, the political balance of the nation changed.

When African Americans left the South during the Great Migration and settled in northern and western cities, political power shifted.

Photo by Edmond Dantu

When industries rose and fell, populations followed jobs. When housing boomed, communities expanded. When retirees sought warmer climates, entire states gained influence in Congress.

None of those transformations were directed by district boundaries. They were driven by human decisions. The lesson remains relevant today.

Political maps may influence elections for a period of time. They can affect which candidates run, how campaigns are conducted, and which communities are grouped together. Courts have recognized that district boundaries matter because representation matters.

Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that no map remains powerful forever.

A Current Example

The principle can be seen even in recent voter registration data.

According to figures released by the Maricopa County Arizona Elections Office, during the month of May, registered Democrats in Maricopa County increased by 516 voters, while registered Republicans declined by 1,772 voters.

Whether those numbers represent a temporary fluctuation or the beginning of a longer trend remains to be seen. Political fortunes often rise and fall from one election cycle to the next.

What the figures do demonstrate, however, is that political landscapes are never frozen in place.

Photo by Sora Shimazaki

Every month, people move into communities. Others move away. Some voters change their party affiliation. Young citizens register for the first time. Others choose to become independents. The electorate is constantly evolving.

That reality reinforces a lesson that history has repeatedly taught: no political map remains static because the people living within those boundaries do not remain static.

The balance of political influence can change not only because district lines are redrawn, but because citizens themselves continue to reshape the communities in which they live.

New families move in.

Young people reach voting age.

Businesses open and close.

The reality is that political change does not always come from manipulation, conspiracy, or wrongdoing. More often, it comes from the natural ebb and flow of society itself.

Neighborhoods change.

Communities grow.

And eventually, political assumptions that once seemed permanent begin to disappear.

America’s political history is filled with examples of districts, counties, and states that once voted overwhelmingly one way before shifting in entirely different directions a generation later.

The reason is simple.

Maps may define where votes are counted.

People determine how those votes are cast.

That distinction is important because it reminds us where the true power of democracy resides.

Not in the pen of a mapmaker.

Not in a legislative chamber.

Not even in a courtroom.

Ultimately, democracy survives because citizens continue to participate.

A district line may influence a contest.

A voter influences the outcome.

One line exists on paper.

The other exists in reality.

Closing Thought

Photo by Rosemary Ketchum

The history of America suggests that every political map comes with an expiration date.

Population growth, migration, economic opportunity, and generational change eventually reshape communities in ways no cartographer can fully predict.

Political boundaries may guide representation for a time.

But the future has always belonged to the people who live within them.The reality is that political change does not always come from manipulation, conspiracy, or wrongdoing. More often, it comes from the natural ebb and flow of society itself.

Political maps may define where votes are counted. But people determine how those votes are cast. And as Maricopa County’s own voter registration figures demonstrate, the makeup of the electorate is changing every day—regardless of where the lines on the map happen to fall. And that may be the most democratic truth of all.

Stand Free, Stand Proud, Stand and Vote!
Your Right To Vote Is An Opportunity Others Never Get!

People move. Communities grow. Generations change. New voters enter the system while others leave it behind. These tides of change have shaped American politics since the nation’s founding.

Not everyone accepts the outcome when elections produce results they did not expect. In fact, disputes over election results are nothing new. Since the closely contested 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, which ultimately required intervention by the Supreme Court, questions, challenges, and objections have become a recurring feature of national political life regardless of which party prevailed. 

Yet the strength of democracy has never rested on unanimous agreement. It rests on the willingness of citizens to participate, to make their voices heard, and to continue engaging in the process even when the outcome is not the one they hoped for.

Maps can be redrawn. Political fortunes can rise and fall. But democracy endures because the people themselves continue to shape its future


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

 

Former Oklahoma City Acting Mayor Guy Liebmann Dies at 90

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

June 10th, 2026

Former Oklahoma Acting Mayor Had Grit, And Determination. A Marine. A State Lawmaker. And A Family Man.

              ——–

Public Servant Helped Guide Oklahoma City Through a Time of Transition

Local news media in Oklahoma appears to have ignored the former city council member and acting mayor service. 

Former Oklahoma City Mayor and Oklahoma State Representative Guy Hoyt Liebmann has passed away at the age of 90.

Former Oklahoma City Mayor and Oklahoma State Representative Guy Hoyt Liebmann has passed away at the age of 90.
Former Oklahoma City Mayor and Oklahoma State Representative Guy Hoyt Liebmann – passed away at the age of 90. Click here or on image for Memorial information.

According to comments posted by citizens following his passing, concerns have been raised that local Oklahoma news media largely overlooked the public service of former Oklahoma City Council member and Acting Mayor Guy Liebmann.

Groff Media reviewed coverage from Oklahoma City’s three major television news outlets—News 9, KOCO 5, and KFOR—as well as Oklahoma’s largest newspaper, The Oklahoman. Aside from a death notice appearing in paid obituary advertising space, we found little or no reporting recognizing Liebmann’s years of service to Oklahoma City and the State of Oklahoma.

Whether this reflects changing news priorities or simply an oversight, it has prompted some residents to question why a public servant who devoted decades to civic leadership received so little attention from the institutions that regularly document the history of the community he served.

Unlike that situation. Groff Media will recognize the individual.

Liebmann died on June 8, 2026, leaving behind a legacy of public service that stretched from the Oklahoma City Council to the Oklahoma House of Representatives and included a brief but significant period as Oklahoma City’s acting mayor.

Born in Shawnee on April 27, 1936, Liebmann graduated from Oklahoma City’s Classen High School before earning a degree in business management from the University of Oklahoma. He later served as an officer in the United States Marine Corps before entering a successful career in real estate and investments.

Many Oklahomans may remember Liebmann best for his service on the Oklahoma City Council representing Ward 8. In November 2003, following the resignation of Mayor Kirk Humphreys, Liebmann was appointed acting mayor and guided the city until voters elected Mick Cornett in March 2004.

Though his time as mayor lasted only a few months, it came during an important chapter in Oklahoma City’s development. The city was continuing its transformation into a nationally recognized metropolitan area, and Liebmann helped provide stability during a period of leadership transition.

During his service on the council and as acting mayor, Liebmann worked with several important city organizations, including the Oklahoma City Water Trust, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds Trust.

After leaving City Hall, Liebmann continued his public service by representing House District 82 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 2005 through 2013.

His public career reflected a belief that local government matters. While many political careers are measured by headlines and controversy, Liebmann’s legacy was built largely through committee work, civic involvement, and a willingness to serve when called upon.

Today, Oklahoma City residents drive roads, utilize services, and enjoy civic improvements that were influenced by the efforts of countless local officials whose names rarely appear in history books. Guy Liebmann was one of those individuals.

As news of his passing spreads, Oklahomans have an opportunity to remember a generation of civic leaders who dedicated years of their lives to public service, often with little recognition beyond the communities they served.

Funeral arrangements have been entrusted to Smith & Kernke Funeral Directors in Oklahoma City. At the time of publication, the funeral home reported that memorial service details were still pending and would be announced when finalized.

Guy Liebmann was 90 years old.

Funeral services and memorial information can be found here.


Benjamin Groff II
Groff Media © Truth Endures
Today We Remember

Do You Know Where He Was Last Week?

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

June 9, 2026

Pre-Trip Medical Evaluation For Politicians Over 70

Prepping Him For The Road Trip

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

This might include:

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

Hydration and Nutritional Support

Some physicians may recommend:

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

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

Voice and Speaking Preparation

For public speakers, clergy, politicians, and entertainers:

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

Sleep and Fatigue Management

A physician might:

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

Physical Conditioning Programs

Many older speakers benefit from:

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

Cognitive and Mental Performance

Some individuals undergo:

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

What Most Public Figures Actually Do

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

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

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

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

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

Some examples include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

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

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

June 9, 2026


Presidential Visibility in the Age of Social Media

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

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

Today, that has changed.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

Benjamin Groff On The State of The Nation

I wanted to present this piece in my own voice. It is my effort to enter the conversation with greater emphasis and a more personal connection to the subject, hoping to give added meaning to the events we are facing today. The full written text of my remarks is included as well.
© Benjamin H. Groff II — Truth Endures / benandsteve.com

June 2, 2026


IF I WERE A TYRANT

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

BENJAMIN GROFF II


 

IF I WERE A TYRANT

If I were a tyrant determined to weaken the Republic of the United States, I would not begin with tanks in the streets or soldiers at the door. No… history shows that nations are rarely surrendered all at once. They are usually persuaded to surrender themselves a little at a time.

First, I would attack confidence. Not confidence in me — confidence in one another.

I would begin by tearing away at the nation’s heroes. I would revisit every flaw, every mistake, every rumor from the past, and present them not as human failings, but as proof that nothing honorable had ever existed at all. Sheriffs, presidents, governors, military leaders, teachers, even ministers — I would insist they were never worthy of admiration in the first place.

I would convince people that patriotism was foolishness, that pride in country was embarrassment, and that respect for institutions was a sign of weakness.

Then I would flood the public square with noise.

Not one story — thousands of them.

Some true. Some half true. Some entirely manufactured. I would spread them across television, social media, podcasts, websites, and endless comment sections until the average citizen no longer knew what was real and what was fiction. Repetition would do the heavy lifting. After hearing something enough times, people begin mistaking familiarity for truth.

And once confusion took hold, I would encourage Americans to distrust every source of information except the ones loyal to my cause.

I would tell them the newspapers were lying.
The courts were corrupt.
The elections were rigged.
The scientists were compromised.
The teachers were indoctrinating.
The police were enemies.
The judges were bought.
And eventually, even neighbors would begin suspecting neighbors.

Division would become the national pastime.

I would not need brilliant leaders to carry out my plan. In fact, charisma without discipline would serve me better. I would elevate loud voices over wise ones. I would reward outrage instead of integrity. I would discover ambitious people lacking moral restraint — people willing to say anything, accuse anyone, or inflame any fear if it kept them powerful and profitable.

Money and attention can persuade some people to abandon principles they never truly possessed.

Then I would encourage the population to separate itself into tribes. Not Americans first — but factions first. Race against race. Rural against urban. Conservative against liberal. Young against old. Citizen against immigrant. I would make every disagreement feel permanent and unforgivable.

Because a divided people are easier to control than a united one.

And finally — perhaps most importantly — I would convince ordinary citizens that freedom itself was the problem. That liberty was dangerous. That dissent was threatening. That opposing voices should be silenced instead of debated.

At that point, I would hardly need to overthrow the Republic.

The people, exhausted, angry, suspicious, and fearful, would begin surrendering it willingly — believing all the while they were saving it.

History has shown that democracies rarely disappear with the sound of drums and marching boots. More often, they fade beneath the applause of crowds convinced they are doing what is necessary.

And the most dangerous tyrant of all?

The one who convinces people they are still free while teaching them to hate one another.

The Boys Who Believed They Were Saving the Future

Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026 

June 1, 2026


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

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

But because of the faces.

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

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

And for a long while, it seemed they had.

After the war came neighborhoods.
Factories.
Opportunity.
Families.https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-4/zbyy0HX8psDdW62wX1E9boULbc48JYfGDwI1XmlBpcIQXDSRhE4weqqUxFRSXy7NlkdWCi6nhf0Z2gG6SG4KSodI4SJe56HFNkxQtnWd6xRmjnr9cAeHsUcsAEg0l2pIfKkE9CmL-PdsUZ-MaZZnljvK-dIzsYCLyRhSqYjgngESyvmLTOpxyTStXkt7csB7?purpose=fullsize
A belief in country.
A belief in community.
A belief that democracy and decency had survived one of mankind’s darkest moments.

UNITY!

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

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

Yet they built lives anyway.

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

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

The painful irony is this:

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

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

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

And yet here we are.

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

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

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

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

Not the uniforms.


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

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

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

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


Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

When Truth Becomes Optional in Politics

Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

May 31, 2026


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When You Knew The Truth And It Was Obvious

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

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

No Virginia, The United States Isn’t On The Verge Of Collapse ––– Yet!

When Fear Becomes a Product: The Truth Behind Viral “Insider Warning” Stories

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

May 26th, 2026


HELP!
The continual warning that something is out to get you!

Every few years America experiences a new wave of warnings that spread across social media like wildfire. Sometimes it is about economic collapse. Sometimes war. Sometimes shortages, blackouts, or the idea that “people in power know something the rest of us do not.”

Recently, one of those stories began circulating again. It tells of an Uber driver picking up a mysterious government-connected passenger near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport who quietly warns him that America is approaching energy shortages, water failures, and regional power outages tied to tensions involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. By the end of the story, the frightened driver is ordering emergency water filters for his family while urging readers to do the same before it is “too late.”

It is dramatic writing. It is emotional writing. And parts of it are built around very real fears.

But that does not make the story factual.

The Truth Hidden Inside the Fiction

Roswell aliens crash into Santa.
Santa and Aliens, Fictional are they?

What makes stories like this powerful is that they mix truth with exaggeration.

There really are tensions in the Middle East affecting global oil markets. There really are concerns about power grid vulnerabilities around the world. Countries such as Cuba have experienced major electrical failures in recent years. Some regions in Africa and South America have dealt with fuel shortages and rolling blackouts.

Even here in the United States, people remember:

  • the Texas winter grid collapse,
  • gasoline shortages after pipeline cyberattacks,
  • supply chain disruptions during COVID,
  • and rising utility costs.

Those things happened.

What has NOT been confirmed is the darker prediction at the center of the viral story:

  • there is no verified evidence of planned “energy lockdowns,”
  • no public confirmation of an imminent nationwide grid collapse,
  • and no proof that insiders are secretly warning friends and family of an unavoidable societal breakdown.

The biggest clue comes at the end of the story itself.

After pages of fear and suspense, the reader is directed toward a specific survival product. That changes the entire nature of the piece. It stops being a warning and starts becoming marketing.

Fear has always sold products.

America’s Real Problem May Be Distrust

The reason these stories spread so quickly is because many Americans no longer trust institutions to tell them the truth.

That distrust did not appear overnight.

People have watched:

  • political division deepen,
  • economic pressure increase,
  • corporations profit during crises,
  • and ordinary families struggle with inflation, housing costs, and uncertainty.

So when someone reads a story claiming that “the people at the top already know,” it feels believable — even when evidence is thin.

The emotional part of the story works because millions of Americans already feel vulnerable.

Preparedness Is Wisdom — Panic Is Business

There is nothing wrong with being prepared.

Having:

  • bottled water,
  • canned food,
  • flashlights,
  • batteries,
  • medication backups,
  • or even a portable water filter

is simply common sense in a world where storms, outages, and emergencies happen.

That is very different from believing civilization is six weeks away from collapse.

One mindset encourages responsibility.

The other encourages panic.

And panic has become a business model online.

The Bigger Lesson

The most important lesson may not be about Iran, oil, or water filters at all.

It may be this:

Electrical setup
Electrical Substation

We are living in an age where emotional storytelling can feel more convincing than verified facts.

A well-written narrative can move people faster than a government report ever will.

That means readers must slow down, ask questions, and separate:

  • genuine preparedness from fear marketing,
  • evidence from rumor,
  • and possibility from certainty.

Because once fear becomes profitable, somebody will always find a way to sell it.


— benandsteve.com | Truth Endures

benandsteve.com Wrote It as Satire. Then 150 Cherry Trees Came Down! Ooops –––

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures
May 24th, 2026

What began on April 1, 2026, as an April Fools satire on benandsteve.com about the removal of Washington D.C.’s famous cherry trees has taken on an ironic twist worthy of the times themselves. From our perch in Arizona, where benandsteve.com now operates, we imagined what many would consider unthinkable: the federal government removing the beloved cherry trees surrounding the nation’s capital. The story was written purely in the spirit of April Fools humor. After all, the last time our reporting came directly from Washington D.C. was back in 2015, and frankly, we had little desire to return.

Then came the response.

A reader challenged the story as being false. We could hardly argue otherwise — it was intended as satire. But the comment included something unexpected: a claim that the National Park Service was actually removing cherry trees as part of a seawall reconstruction project around the Tidal Basin. Curious, we checked.

The unbelievable part? The reader was right. Thanks to them we checked who ordered it.

Trump is pissed over Cherry bloom in his hair
Blooms falling in wrong persons hair, proves deadly for cherry trees in D.C.

The current occupant of the White House has reportedly expressed frustration over the nation originally receiving the cherry trees as a gift from Japan — a detail aides say had to be explained to him once again during a recent briefing. According to the tongue-in-cheek chatter now circulating through political rumor mills and late-night conversations, the irritation supposedly intensified after a television news segment showed cherry blossoms caught in the President’s hair during a windy appearance near the Tidal Basin. Unfortunately for staff, reports claim several top aides were also seen wearing the pink evidence of spring across their jackets and hairlines, triggering laughter from commentators and little sympathy inside the administration.

Whether fact, fiction, or simply Washington being Washington, the story has now taken on a life of its own.

In reality, trees connected to the historic Japanese gift presented to the United States in the early 1900s are being removed as part of a massive infrastructure effort designed to repair and reinforce the aging seawall surrounding the Tidal Basin in Washington, D.C.. Reports indicate approximately 150 cherry trees have already been removed or are slated for removal during the project.

Sometimes satire collides with reality in the strangest ways imaginable. What was intended as an outrageous fictional jab at modern government decision-making suddenly found itself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with actual events. In an era where truth often feels stranger than fiction, even an April Fools joke can accidentally wander into the headlines.

George Washington never cut down a cherry tree. Meanwhile, history will show 150+ will have been cut down by the Trump Administration.


Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

Inclusion Is How We Heal a Broken World

May 20th, 2026By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

__________________________________________________________________

Sometimes the road to healing begins with nothing more than making sure no one feels left behind.

Keep your friends close, even if they live far way.There are times in life when the smallest gestures carry the greatest meaning. A phone call. A handshake. A hug at a restaurant. Or simply hearing someone say, “We’re in town — come see us.” Those moments tell people they matter. In a world growing increasingly divided by politics, class, social standing, race, religion, and ideology, inclusion may be one of the last true bridges we have left.
Too many people today quietly carry the feeling of being left out. Sometimes it happens intentionally. Other times, people simply become busy, distracted, or absorbed in different circles. But exclusion, whether deliberate or accidental, leaves scars people rarely speak about openly. It creates loneliness in neighborhoods, divisions in families, and distance between old friends who once shared life together.
Yet inclusion has the power to heal much of that brokenness.
When we invite others to the table, we do more than share a meal. We remind people they are seen. We tell them their history with us mattered. We acknowledge their humanity and their place in our lives. A simple invitation can restore dignity to someone who feels forgotten. It can calm resentment before it hardens into bitterness. It can rebuild trust in a time when trust is disappearing from much of American life.
I often think about a small sign that hung in my grandparents’ home. It read, “The road to a friend’s home is never too long.” Those words were not simply decoration. They reflected a way of life. Back then, people stopped by to visit. Coffee was poured without ceremony. Extra chairs were always found. Folks did not ask what social class you belonged to before opening the door.
Somewhere along the way, much of society drifted from that spirit. Success was measured by status rather than kindness. Invitations became selective. Social circles became guarded. Technology connected the world while somehow making many people feel more isolated than ever before.
But perhaps the answer to repairing the country is not always found in Washington, headlines, or social movements alone. Perhaps part of the healing begins much smaller. Around dinner tables. At backyard cookouts. In reunions where nobody is intentionally left behind. In learning once again how to make people feel welcome.
Inclusion does not mean everyone must agree. It does not mean every friendship survives forever. But it does mean we can choose decency over social competition. Compassion over silent judgment. Humanity over hierarchy.
America has always been strongest when ordinary people looked out for one another. Neighbors helping neighbors. Friends remembering friends. Communities making room for those who felt forgotten. That spirit built towns, churches, schools, volunteer fire departments, and generations of families who survived hard times together.
Maybe that is what we need again.
Not perfection. Not performance. Not pretending.
Just people willing to say: “You still matter to us. Come sit with us awhile.”
Sometimes the road to healing the world begins with nothing more complicated than making sure the road to a friend’s home is never too long.
_________________________________________________________________

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Continue reading

The Country Inside Our Front Door

The Politics of the Front Yard

Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026


I have spent most of my life trying to understand people by observing them. Watching. Listening. Gathering information. Trying to decide what was true and what was not. It is not always the easiest way to live. Sometimes it places you on the wrong side of popularity. Sometimes it means standing beside people others mock, avoid, or openly dislike. That can cost you friendships, opportunities, promotions, and acceptance. It can mark you long before you understand the price of it.

This is reportedly the first known photo of the white house.

But there is another price too.

The price of ignoring what you know is right simply because everyone else is moving in another direction.

I learned early there are always people willing to promise answers for everything. Politicians who swear they alone can save the country. Religious leaders who imply salvation can somehow be purchased through loyalty, donations, or obedience. Public figures who convince followers that happiness is just one more contribution, one more vote, or one more enemy away.

Over time, I began to distrust anyone selling certainty.

Life taught me that most people claiming to have all the answers are usually one of three things: mistaken, manipulative, or desperate to be believed themselves.

That does not mean faith is worthless. Or that government has no purpose. Or that communities should not come together. It simply means no politician, church, movement, or television personality can do the hardest work for you. They cannot build your character. They cannot create your peace of mind. They cannot decide your morals. They cannot make your home stable, loving, or decent.

Only you can do that.

As a child, I developed a strange little understanding of America during a fourth-grade civics lesson. I imagined our house as its own country. My father was the president. My mother was the vice president. My brothers were senators and representatives. My sisters and I were citizens living under the structure they created.

It made perfect sense to me.

There were rules. Responsibilities. Budgets. Expectations. Sometimes disagreements. Sometimes punishments. Sometimes celebrations. But the purpose of the “government” inside our home was not domination. It was stability. Protection. Survival. Keeping the lights on. Making certain everyone had what they needed.

We did not hold elections.

We did not need to.

In my child’s mind, my parents already held the positions because they had proven themselves capable of carrying the responsibility. They worked. Paid the bills. Protected the household. They had earned the authority through sacrifice.

Looking back now, I realize that little imaginary country taught me more about America than many adults ever understand.

A nation is only as healthy as the homes inside it.

Not the slogans.

Not the campaigns.

Not the outrage.

What matters most is how people choose to live within their own space and how willing they are to allow others to live within theirs.

The loudest voices in America keep demanding control over everyone else’s space. Maybe freedom was never supposed to work that way.

Your life is not destroyed because your neighbor is gay while you are not. Or because they worship differently. Or because they speak another language. Or because their skin is darker than yours. Their space belongs to them. Yours belongs to you.

The loudest voices in America keep demanding control over everyone else’s space. Maybe freedom was never supposed to work that way.

Somewhere along the way, many people forgot that freedom was never supposed to mean controlling everyone else’s existence. It was supposed to mean protecting the right of people to peacefully exist beside one another.

That is what I still believe.

Not because someone told me to believe it.

But because after a lifetime of watching people, I have found fear usually creates far more damage than difference ever does.


The Country Inside Our Front Door

Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026

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 Most Dangerous Crisis on Earth May Not Be What You Think

Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026


What Happens When Humanity Can No Longer Agree on Reality?

For generations, people feared the end of the world would arrive in dramatic fashion. Nuclear war. Asteroids. Global pandemics. Economic collapse. Religious prophecy. Environmental disaster. Machines taking over mankind.

Yet the most serious threat facing humanity today may be quieter than all of them.

It may be the slow collapse of truth itself.

Not truth in a philosophical sense. Not debates over religion or politics. Humanity has always argued over ideas. Civilization was built on disagreement. But throughout history, societies generally shared a common understanding of reality. Facts still mattered. Evidence still mattered. Institutions, despite flaws, still carried enough trust to hold nations together.

Today, that foundation is cracking.

Around the world, entire populations now live inside separate realities built by algorithms, partisan media, influencers, governments, artificial intelligence, and emotional manipulation. People no longer merely disagree on solutions. Increasingly, they disagree on what is real to begin with.

And that changes everything.

The Age of Manufactured Reality

Human beings were never designed to absorb information at the speed modern technology now delivers it. Every second, millions of posts, videos, opinions, accusations, conspiracy theories, and manufactured outrage flood screens across the globe.

Truth now competes with entertainment.

Facts compete with emotion.

Accuracy competes with virality.

The result is a world where the loudest voices often overpower the most honest ones.

A lie used to travel town to town by rumor. Today it circles the globe in minutes.

Artificial intelligence has only accelerated the problem. Deepfake videos, cloned voices, manipulated photographs, and fabricated stories are becoming increasingly difficult to identify. Soon, people may no longer trust what they see with their own eyes.

That is not merely a technological issue.

It is a civilization issue.

When Trust Dies, Nations Fracture

Every major system on Earth depends on trust.

Governments require citizens to believe elections matter.

Courts require people to believe justice exists.

Doctors require patients to trust medicine.

Journalists require readers to trust reporting.

Families require trust to survive at all.

Once trust erodes, societies begin to fracture into tribes. Fear replaces cooperation. Anger replaces dialogue. Suspicion replaces reason.

The danger is not simply political division. Humanity has survived division before.

The danger is what happens when millions of people become convinced that every institution, every source of information, and every opposing viewpoint is part of an enemy conspiracy.

At that point, compromise becomes betrayal.

And democracy itself begins to weaken.

Technology Advanced Faster Than Human Wisdom

Humanity now holds astonishing power.

We can communicate instantly across continents. We can alter genetics. We can create machines capable of mimicking human intelligence. We can destroy nations with weapons powerful enough to erase entire cities in minutes.

Yet emotionally, politically, and ethically, humanity often still behaves as it did centuries ago.

Greed remains.

Hatred remains.

Fear remains.

Tribalism remains.

The tools evolved faster than the human mind using them.

That imbalance may be the defining crisis of our time.

Humanity now holds astonishing power.

The Real Battlefield Is the Human Mind

Once populations lose the ability to separate truth from manipulation, freedom itself becomes fragile.

Every conflict now involves information warfare.

Political campaigns manipulate emotions.

Foreign governments spread propaganda online.

Corporations compete for attention by exploiting outrage.

Social media rewards anger because anger keeps people engaged.

The battlefield is no longer only land, oil, or military strength.

The battlefield is perception itself.

Who controls fear often controls public behavior.

Who controls information increasingly controls society.

That reality should concern every person on Earth regardless of political party, religion, nationality, race, or ideology.

Because once populations lose the ability to separate truth from manipulation, freedom itself becomes fragile.

Can Humanity Recover?

Most importantly, it requires ordinary people willing to listen before condemning one another.

History shows civilizations survive difficult times when enough people choose reason over hysteria, dialogue over hatred, and truth over convenience.

But that requires effort.

It requires people willing to question information even when it supports their own beliefs.

It requires media organizations willing to prioritize facts over clicks.

It requires leaders willing to calm fear rather than weaponize it.

And perhaps most importantly, it requires ordinary people willing to listen before condemning one another.

That may sound simple.

In today’s world, it may be one of the hardest things humanity has ever attempted.

Final Thought

It may be that human beings are losing the ability to trust one another long enough to solve any of those problems together.

The greatest threat facing humanity may not be climate change, nuclear war, artificial intelligence, or economic collapse alone.

It may be that human beings are losing the ability to trust one another long enough to solve any of those problems together.

And if that continues, history may someday record that civilization did not collapse because mankind lacked intelligence.

It collapsed because mankind stopped believing anything — including each other.


— benandsteve.com
Truth Endures

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

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!


WHITE HOUSE ORDERS REMOVAL OF ALL D.C. CHERRY TREES; TEXAS TO ASSIST WITH DISPOSAL

Reaction on Capitol Hill was swift—and, at times, confused.

By: B.H.Groff II Groff Media 2026


WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a move that has surprised residents, historians, and seasonal tourists alike, the White House has issued an executive directive calling for the immediate removal of all cherry trees within the District of Columbia.

According to preliminary details released late Monday evening, the plan calls for the trees—long associated with the city’s springtime identity—to be cut down and processed for transport out of the nation’s capital.

Administration officials described the decision as part of a broader “landscape reassessment initiative,” though specifics surrounding the timing and necessity of the removal remain unclear.

“We’re clearing them out. Making room for more air and real estate!”

“This is about taking a fresh look at long-standing traditions and evaluating their place in a modern framework,” one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “No element, no matter how iconic, is exempt from review.”

The cherry trees, many of which trace their origins to a 1912 gift from Japan, have been a defining feature of Washington’s Tidal Basin and surrounding areas for more than a century. Each year, the blossoms draw visitors from around the world during peak bloom.

Despite their cultural significance, crews have reportedly already begun staging equipment near key locations, with early removal efforts expected to begin within days.


TEXAS TO PLAY KEY ROLE IN DISPOSAL

In an unexpected interstate partnership, officials confirmed that the State of Texas has agreed to assist in the disposal process.

Under the arrangement, National Guard units from Texas would be deployed to Washington to process the felled trees, converting them into wood chips for transport back to the state.

Sources familiar with the plan say the material is expected to be repurposed for use in large-scale outdoor cooking operations, particularly during football season.

“We understand Texas has both the capacity and the appreciation for this kind of resource,” one official noted. “They see it as a practical solution.”

Texas officials have not released a formal statement but are said to be “fully prepared” to mobilize personnel once federal clearance is finalized.

“The Cherry Trees changed into woodchips would be perfect for smoking meats at football tailgate parties”

“The Cherry Trees changed into woodchips would be perfect for smoking meats at football tailgate parties” according to Texas officials.


CONGRESS WEIGHS IN

Reaction on Capitol Hill was swift—and, at times, confused, as lawmakers attempted to clarify both the intent and implications of the proposed cherry tree removal.

“It goes toward the whole DUI thing,” said one longtime, hood-covered House member, before being quietly corrected by a senator who clarified it was DEI—Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

“We don’t have to have cherry trees for equality,” the senator added, “but they are nice for flavoring vodka.”

Another lawmaker expressed frustration with the annual bloom. “These white flowery things get everywhere,” he said. “It’s a damn mess if you get a bunch of them in your hair.”

Not all were in favor of the removal.

“You know how bad this place is going to smell without them?” one visibly irritated member asked. “At least the trees covered up some of it.”

One senior committee chair, speaking in a tone usually reserved for matters of national security, offered a more technical justification.

“Cherry trees create a false sense of seasonal stability,” he said. “When citizens begin to expect predictable blooming cycles, it undermines our broader messaging on uncertainty. Removing them restores balance.”

While no formal vote has yet been scheduled, sources indicate bipartisan discussions are ongoing, with several members privately acknowledging they were unaware the trees were not, in fact, native to Texas.


PUBLIC REACTION MIXED

Residents and visitors expressed a range of reactions as news of the directive spread.

“I don’t know what Washington looks like without them,” said one local resident near the Tidal Basin. “It’s like taking away spring.”

“I don’t know what Washington looks like without them,” said one local resident near the Tidal Basin. “It’s like taking away spring.”

Tourism officials are reportedly monitoring the situation closely, with some expressing concern over the potential economic impact if the trees are removed before peak bloom.

Others, however, appeared less concerned.

“They’re just trees,” one passerby said. “I’m more worried about parking.”

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE UNCLEAR

Federal agencies have yet to release a detailed timeline for the project, though internal memos suggest the work could begin as early as this week.

Environmental groups have not yet issued formal responses, but several advocacy organizations indicated they are reviewing the directive.

As crews prepare for what could be one of the most visible changes to the city’s landscape in decades, officials continue to emphasize that the effort is part of a broader evaluation of federal properties.

No official cost estimate has been released.

FINAL NOTE

Officials confirmed the directive will take effect at midnight on April 1st.

One senator from Texas is reportedly backing the measure with a special addendum, citing concerns he said arose during a recent winter vacation to Cancun. According to the senator, a video he viewed on YouTube suggested the original cherry trees—gifted by Japan in 1912—may have been engineered with embedded surveillance capabilities.

“Given what we now know,” he stated, “it would be irresponsible not to take a closer look.”

In the end, the cherry trees remain—and so does the tradition of April Fools’ Day.

“Trump may be first U.S. President to mythically cut down a cherry tree since George Washington,” top aide says!

*No trees were harmed in the making of this report—only expectations. Happy April Fools’ Day.


EDITOR’S NOTE: The “Final Note” in this story tells you this piece is satire—but in today’s climate, it doesn’t feel nearly as far-fetched as it should. As you move through the rest of the year, keep this in mind. We are living in a time when reality often outpaces even our most exaggerated imagination.

Benjamin


By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026


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.

Marketing to Change Minds

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”

© 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

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

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?

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 Eight

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.


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.



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.


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 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

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.

  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

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

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.

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