When the Campaign Ad Fails the Fact Check

October 13, 2026October 13, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

Documented errors & misleading claims in Republican advertising show why political loyalty should never replace verification. Yet, do Democratic advertisings fare any better?

October 14, 2026

An ominous voice. An unflattering photograph. A frightening accusation. Thirty seconds later, the commercial ends—and the impression remains.

But what happens when the photograph shows the wrong person? When an accusation leaves out the timeline? When the study cited in small print does not examine the policy the candidate actually supports?

Those questions deserve attention before the next campaign commercial tells us what to believe.

A political debate scene with a heated exchange between two candidates at podiums, one man accusing the woman of being a 'porker,' while she sarcastically responds, surrounded by an engaged audience. — _{^{Who’s cheating whom? Who’s being true? The accusations fly, the crowd takes sides, and somewhere in the shouting, the truth gets drowned out.
Folks, when we care more about who wins the argument than whether the accusation is true, we’re the ones being fooled.}}

Recent reporting by KJZZ and FactCheck.org documents factual errors and misleading presentations in Republican and Republican-aligned advertising across several states. Some involve outright inaccuracies. Others take genuine statements or events and leave out facts necessary to understand them.

These examples do not establish what candidates privately expected voters to believe or whether they anticipated voters checking their claims. My interpretation is that this kind of advertising gains an advantage when viewers accept its message without examining the evidence.

That is a temptation we should recognize in ourselves. When an accusation fits what we already believe about the other party, it can feel convincing before we have checked a single fact.

In Arizona, an attack ad supporting Republican Rep. Eli Crane targeted Democratic challenger Jonathan Nez. Yet the No Going Back PAC commercial twice displayed photographs of Myron Lizer, Nez’s former vice president—not Nez himself. Lizer is a Republican and Trump supporter.

KJZZ reported the error on October 10 and noted that the images were corrected. That correction matters. So does the fact that an advertisement seeking to discredit a candidate initially failed to identify him correctly. This reporting establishes the photograph error; it does not independently resolve the ad’s underlying spending allegation.

In North Carolina, No Going Back PAC accused Democratic Senate candidate Roy Cooper of allowing approximately 16,000 rape kits to remain untested.

The backlog was real. The presentation of responsibility was misleading.

FactCheck.org reported that the kits were held by hundreds of local law enforcement agencies and had not been submitted to the state laboratory Cooper oversaw as attorney general. A later statewide inventory established the extent of the problem. That leaves room to question whether officials at multiple levels should have done more. It does not justify presenting the evidence as though Cooper personally controlled thousands of kits awaiting testing.

The same advertisement connected Cooper’s pandemic prison settlement to a convicted sex offender who later committed murder. But Jimmie Speight Jr. had completed his prison term before the settlement. His subsequent reinstatement to post-release supervision counted under the agreement, explaining his appearance on its list.

That distinction changes the story. An advertisement about public safety owes voters an accurate timeline, especially when it uses a horrifying crime to assign political blame.

In Pennsylvania and Texas, hospital-closure warnings provided another example.

Congressional Leadership Fund attacked Democrat Janelle Stelson in Pennsylvania’s 10th District with a claim involving up to 25 rural hospital closures. MAGA Inc. attacked Texas Senate candidate James Talarico with a warning involving 30 hospitals.

Both relied on a study assuming a public insurance option would reimburse hospitals at existing Medicare rates. FactCheck.org found that neither candidate had proposed that specific design; Talarico expressly supported higher reimbursement rates.

A study can be real while its use in an advertisement is misleading. Citing research does not establish that its assumptions match the candidate’s proposal.

In Michigan, an NRSC advertisement alleged that Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed had advocated abolishing prisons. FactCheck.org found that he had not.

Other attacks drew on genuine earlier statements about shifting police resources and reviewing prison sentences. Those positions are legitimate subjects for scrutiny. But voters also deserve their context and an accurate account of his current platform, which includes investment in law enforcement recruitment, retention and retirement.

These are specific failures by identifiable advertisers. Several ads came from outside political groups, so responsibility should be assigned to the sponsors rather than automatically to the candidates who benefited.

The criticism is straightforward: get the person right, preserve the timeline, represent the proposal accurately, and let the evidence support the accusation.

A party label cannot do that work.

Folks, the commercial that deserves our closest attention may be the one we find easiest to believe. Before repeating it, ask who paid for it, whether the original source says what the advertiser claims, and what information disappeared between the source and the screen.

We do not have to abandon our political convictions to demand honest advertising. We have to insist that those convictions survive contact with the facts.

The Fact Check Cannot Stop at Democratic Party

Democratic campaign advertising deserves the same scrutiny as Republican advertising—and recent examples show why.

It is easy to spot a questionable campaign commercial when it attacks someone we support. The harder test comes when it attacks someone we oppose.

A woman examines documents with a magnifying glass while taking notes, with a laptop displaying a political debate in the background. Papers and a coffee cup are on the table. — _{^{The Fact Checkers Never Stop}}

That is when a frightening accusation can feel like confirmation. We recognize the party label, agree with the message, and move on without checking what was left out.

But an advertisement does not become accurate because it comes from our preferred side.

Recent investigations by FactCheck.org and PolitiFact identify false or misleading claims in advertisements from Democratic candidates and Democratic-aligned organizations in Maine, Iowa, Georgia, Texas and Ohio. The problems vary: an accusation contradicted by the record, a quotation stripped of context, a procedural vote presented without a later substantive vote, or a projection delivered without its qualifications.

These examples do not tell us what candidates privately expected voters to believe. My interpretation is that such advertising benefits when viewers accept a message that fits their political loyalties without examining its evidence.

In Maine, WinSenate, a super PAC supporting Democratic Senate candidates, accused Republican Sen. Susan Collins of helping conceal the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Collins did oppose an amendment attached to a defense bill. That is a real vote and a legitimate subject for criticism. But she subsequently supported the standalone disclosure legislation that passed the Senate by unanimous consent in November 2025.

FactCheck.org found that the advertisements misleadingly presented her record by leaving out that later support.

One ad also characterized a major donor to a pro-Collins super PAC as Epstein’s business partner. Its basis was that Stephen Schwarzman and Epstein were among the founding members of the same private club. That does not, by itself, establish the close business relationship the description suggests.

An advertiser owes voters more than an alarming name and an insinuation.

A separate Maine advertisement from Majority Forward claimed Collins did not believe insider trading should be illegal.

FactCheck.org found that claim false. Collins helped write and pass the 2012 STOCK Act, which affirmed that members of Congress are subject to insider-trading prohibitions.

She opposed a complete congressional stock-trading ban. Critics can challenge that position and the adequacy of existing enforcement. But opposing a blanket trading ban is different from supporting illegal insider trading.

The advertisement blurred that distinction to turn a policy disagreement into a more damaging accusation.

In Iowa, WinSenate attacked Republican Senate candidate Ashley Hinson over the Epstein files.

Hinson had opposed procedural efforts related to disclosure. Yet she voted for the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, when it passed the House 427–1.

PolitiFact rated the claim that she voted against releasing the files Mostly False because the advertisement omitted her later vote for release.

The advertising also emphasized donors whose names appeared in the files. A name appearing in those records does not, on its own, demonstrate wrongdoing or a close relationship with Epstein.

Voters deserve the complete voting record and evidence proportionate to the accusation.

In Georgia, Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff’s television ads used a shortened recording of Republican challenger Mike Collins discussing Social Security and returning to the workforce.

The advertisements framed his remarks as a threat to retirees. But PolitiFact found that the full interview concerned making work more financially advantageous through lower taxes. Collins had not instructed retirees to surrender their benefits and get jobs.

There are substantive reasons to examine his policies: he supported measures that experts warned could threaten future benefits. Those concerns deserve accurate discussion.

They do not justify editing a quotation into a message its speaker did not deliver. PolitiFact rated the advertisement’s combined claim Mostly False.

In Texas, Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico’s campaign said Republican Ken Paxton voted to protect puppy abusers.

The underlying vote concerned a 2011 bill increasing the bond required when someone appealed a civil court’s finding of animal cruelty. The measure did not increase penalties for animal abuse itself.

Paxton did not explain his opposition. Other opponents raised concerns about procedural fairness and the cost of appeals.

PolitiFact rated Talarico’s claim Mostly False. A vote about appeal requirements can be criticized on its merits. It does not establish that the lawmaker intended to protect animal abusers.

Ohio supplies a more qualified example.

Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown’s advertisement said Republican Sen. Jon Husted voted to remove 490,000 Ohioans from their healthcare coverage.

PolitiFact found the number broadly consistent with credible estimates of losses from Medicaid changes and the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. But it was a projection over ten years, subject to implementation and other uncertainties—not a completed count of people already losing insurance.

Husted’s record also included a later proposal to extend the subsidies.

The claim received a Half True rating. It should not be lumped together with an invented accusation. The criticism here concerns missing qualifications and the presentation of uncertainty.

These findings establish specific advertising failures. They do not measure which party misleads more often, and they do not make every claim equally wrong.

Responsibility also matters. Ads purchased by WinSenate or Majority Forward should be attributed to those organizations rather than automatically to the Democratic candidates who might benefit.

The standard should remain consistent: preserve the context, explain the vote, distinguish estimates from established results, and support accusations with evidence.

Folks, our own side should not receive a discount on truth.

Before sharing the commercial that confirms everything we already believe, we should check the original statement, the complete record and the sponsor’s supporting evidence.

Our political convictions may guide our vote. They should never decide which facts we are willing to see.

Signature of Benjamin Groff with copyright information and website link.

Sources

PolitiFact, October 9, 2026

Sources

FactCheck.org, October 1, 2026

FactCheck.org, July 7, 2026

PolitiFact, October 2, 2026

PolitiFact, September 15, 2026

PolitiFact, October 12, 2026

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

May 24, 2026May 24, 2026Benjamin2 Comments

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.

Farewell & Remembrance – Barney Frank

May 20, 2026May 20, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

May 20, 2026

_{^{Image – Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures}}

Barney Frank

1940 – 2025

Public Servant. Trailblazer. Champion. Icon.

Former Congressman Barney Frank has died. Reports indicate that Frank entered hospice care at his home in Ogunquit, Maine, while battling congestive heart failure. According to the Associated Press.

Frank died late Tuesday, according to Jim Segel, Frank’s former campaign manager and close friend.

“Former Congressman Barney Frank, one of the most recognizable and influential openly gay lawmakers in American history, spent his final days in hospice care at his home in Ogunquit, Maine. The longtime Massachusetts representative, known for his sharp wit, fierce advocacy, and groundbreaking role in LGBTQI representation in Congress, had been battling congestive heart failure. As supporters, friends, and admirers reflect on his legacy, many are honoring a public servant whose voice helped reshape conversations about equality, civil rights, and representation in America.”

Barney Frank was many things to many people: a fierce advocate, a sharp intellect, a political force, and a voice that could cut through the noise with clarity and conviction. But above all, he was a champion for fairness, equality, and the rights of those too often left on the margins.

As one of the first openly gay members of Congress, Barney Frank broke barriers with unapologetic authenticity. He did not merely open doors for others — he helped tear them down. From fighting for LGBTQI rights to shaping major financial reform through the Dodd-Frank legislation, his impact on the nation remains undeniable.

Barney possessed a wit that could disarm opponents, a mind capable of dissecting the most complex issues, and a determination that never stopped pushing for what he believed was right. His public service helped redefine what representation looked like in America and inspired generations who once believed they had no place in government, leadership, or public life.

For countless members of the LGBTQI community, Barney Frank stood as proof that courage and honesty could change history. He understood the weight of silence, and he refused to live within it. In doing so, he became not just a lawmaker, but a symbol of progress and perseverance.

“Equality is not a special interest. It is a human right.”
— Barney Frank

Today we remember a man who helped shape modern America through intelligence, humor, resilience, and conviction. His voice may now be silent, but the legacy he leaves behind continues to echo through every conversation about equality, dignity, and justice.

Thank you, Barney.
You recorded history.
You changed it.
And you will be remembered.

Rest in Power.

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

April 27, 2026May 6, 2026Benjamin1 Comment

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

April 27, 2026

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.

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

April 11, 2026May 6, 2026BenjaminLeave a comment

April 11, 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.

There was a time when this state was overwhelmingly Democratic, but more importantly—it was locally driven. Communities knew their candidates. Campaigns were built in barbershops, cafés, and courthouse hallways—not in distant boardrooms. Leaders rose from the people they represented. Even figures like Carl Albert carried Oklahoma values with them to Washington, not the other way around.

Back then, politics wasn’t perfect—but it was personal.

Southeastern Oklahoma—“Little Dixie”—held strong Democratic roots that reflected the culture and working-class backbone of the region. Even in places like Tulsa and the northeast, where conservatism had a firmer grip, the political identity was still shaped by local influence, local relationships, and local accountability.

That began to change when money entered the room—and never left.

Over time, national political machines and out-of-state interests realized something: Oklahoma was fertile ground. Campaigns stopped being about neighbors convincing neighbors. They became about funding streams, media buys, consultants, and narratives crafted far beyond state lines. The candidates may still live here—but the strategies, the messaging, and often the priorities do not.

Even towns like Elk City, Oklahoma remember a time when national figures still spoke directly to local communities. Jimmy Carter built much of his campaign on that very idea—making personal promises and treating small towns like they mattered. And when he became President, he was known for keeping those commitments, returning to places others might have forgotten.

That kind of connection is hard to imagine today.

When Carter passed, the coverage—especially at the local level—felt noticeably quiet in places where, years ago, a visit like his would have been remembered and retold. Maybe that’s time passing. Or maybe it says something more about where we are now—where national politics has grown louder, more divided, and more distant from the very communities it once depended on. And maybe it says more about the community’s morals.

And that’s the real shift.

It’s not Republican versus Democrat. It’s local versus national control.

What we’re witnessing now—even in something as simple as voter registration changes—is the continued unraveling of a system that once belonged to the people who lived here. The decisions that affect Oklahoma communities are increasingly influenced by voices that have never set foot on our streets, never sat in our cafés, and never had to answer directly to the people they impact.

Oklahoma didn’t just evolve politically. It was overtaken.

And the question now isn’t which party wins next.
It’s whether the people of this state will ever truly get their voice back. Even more importantly, will the people of Oklahoma ever stand and take their voice back!

This isn’t just an Oklahoma story—it applies to communities across the country. Every elected official, at every level, should be measured by one standard: are they truly representing the people they serve, or is it time for someone else to step in?

Who Is Tim Walz?

August 7, 2024August 7, 2024BenjaminLeave a comment

By: Heather Cox Richardson From Substack – Reposted By: Benjamin Groff© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures

On August 6, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson wrote on Substack the following entry, it was to the point and told exactly what people should know about Tim Walz. He is a decent human being. Who has done a number of things in life. Some of those things came at making human decisions. Fallible to a point, he may be. Who isn’t? Heather’s writing begins next –––

Today Vice President Kamala Harris named her choice for her vice presidential running mate: Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota. Walz grew up in rural Nebraska. He enlisted in the Army National Guard when he was 17 and served for 24 years, retiring in 2005 as a command sergeant major, making him the highest-ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress, according to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

He went to college with the educational benefits afforded him thanks to his service in the Army, and graduated from Chadron (Nebraska) State College. From 1989 to 1990, he taught at a high school in China, then became a social studies teacher in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met fellow teacher Gwen Whipple, who became his wife. They moved to Minnesota, where they both continued teaching and had two children, Hope and Gus, through IVF.

Walz became the faculty advisor for the school’s gay-straight alliance organization at the same time that he coached the high-school football team from a 0–27 record to a state championship. The advisor “really needed to be the football coach, who was the soldier and was straight and was married,” Walz said in 2018.

Walz ran for Congress in 2005 after some of his students were asked to leave a rally for George W. Bush because one of them had a sticker for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Walz won and served in Congress for twelve years, sitting on the House Agriculture Committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

Voters elected Walz to the Minnesota state house in 2018, and in his second term they gave him a slim majority in the state legislature. With that support, Walz signed into law protections for abortion rights, supported gender-affirming care, and legalized the recreational use of marijuana. He signed into law gun safety legislation and protections for voting rights, and pushed for action to combat climate change and to promote renewable energy.

Strong tax revenues and spending cuts gave the state a $17.6 billion surplus, and the Democrats under Walz used the money not to cut taxes, as Republicans wanted, but to invest in education, fund free breakfast and lunch for schoolchildren, make tuition free at the state’s public colleges for students whose families earned less than $80,000 a year, and invest in paid family and medical leave and health insurance coverage regardless of immigration status.

While MAGA Republicans are already trying to define Walz as “far left,” his votes in Congress put him pretty squarely in the middle. His work with Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan to expand technology production and infrastructure funding in the state was rewarded in 2023, when Minnesota knocked Texas out of the top five states for business. The CNBC rating looked at 86 indicators in 10 categories, including the workforce, infrastructure, health, and business friendliness.

Walz checks a number of boxes for the 2024 election, most notably that he hails from near the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and comes across as a normal, nice guy. He favors unions, workers’ rights, and a $15 minimum wage. He is also the person who coined the phrase that took away the dangerous overtones of today’s MAGA Republicans by dubbing them “weird.” As a student of his said: “In politics he’s good at calling out B.S. without getting nasty or too down in the dirt…. It’s the kind of common sense he showed as a coach: practical and kinda goofy.”

Walz is also a symbol of an important resetting of the Democratic Party. He has been unapologetic about his popular programs. On Sunday, July 28, when CNN’s Jake Tapper listed some of Walz’s policies and asked if they made Walz vulnerable to Trump calling him a “big government liberal,” Walz joked that he was, indeed, a “monster.”

“Kids are eating and having full bellies so they can go learn, and women are making their own health care decisions, and we’re a top five business state, and we also rank in the top three of happiness…. The fact of the matter is,” where Democratic policies are implemented, “quality of life is higher, the economies are better…educational attainment is better. So yeah, my kids are going to eat here, and you’re going to have a chance to go to college, and you’re going to have an opportunity to live where we’re working on reducing carbon emissions. Oh, and by the way, you’re going to have personal incomes that are higher, and you’re going to have health insurance. So if that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the label.”

Right-wing reactionary politicians have claimed to represent ordinary Americans since the time of the passage of the Voting Rights Act—on August 6, 1965, exactly 59 years ago today—by insisting that a government that works for communities is a “socialist” plan to elevate undeserving women and racial, ethnic, and gender minorities at the expense of hardworking white men.

Historically, though, rural America has quite often been the heart of the country’s progressive politics, and the Midwest has had a central place in that progressivism. Walz reintegrates that history with today’s Democratic Party.

That reintegration has left the Republicans flatfooted. Trump and J.D. Vance expected to continue their posturing as champions of the common man, but on that front the credentials of a New York real estate developer who inherited millions of dollars and of a Yale-educated venture capitalist pale next to a Nebraska-born schoolteacher. Bryan Metzger, politics reporter at Business Insider, pointed out that J.D. Vance tried to hit Walz as a “San Francisco-style liberal,” but while Vance lived in San Francisco as a venture capitalist between 2013 and 2017, Walz went to San Francisco for the first time just last month.

Head writer and producer of A Closer Look at Late Night with Seth Meyers Sal Gentile summed up Walz’s progressive politics and community vibe when he wrote on social media: “Tim Walz will expand free school lunches, raise the minimum wage, make it easier to unionize, fix your [carburetor], replace the old wiring in your basement, spray that wasp’s nest under the deck, install a new spring for your garage door and put a new chain on your lawnmower.”

Vice President Harris had a very deep bench from which to choose a running mate, but her choice of Walz seems to have been widely popular. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who are usually on opposite sides of the party, both praised the choice, prompting Ocasio-Cortez to post: “Dems in disconcerting levels of array.”

Harris and Walz held their first rally together tonight in Philadelphia, where Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, who had been a top contender for the vice presidential slot, fired up the crowd. “Each of us has a responsibility to get off the sidelines, to get in the game, and to do our part,” he said. “Are you ready to do your part? Are you ready to form a more perfect union? Are you ready to build an America where no matter what you look like, where you come from, who you love, or who you pray to, that this will be a place for you? And are you ready to look the next president of the United States in the eye and say, ‘Hello, Madam President?’ I am too, so let’s get to work!”

Pennsylvania is a crucial state, and Shapiro issued a statement offering his “enthusiastic support” to the ticket. He pledged “to work to unite Pennsylvanians behind my friends Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and defeat Donald Trump.”

Biden’s Victory Speech: Uniting America for Progress | Biden Wins

June 25, 2024BenjaminLeave a comment

Before the presidential debates on Thursday, posts from supporters of President Biden are getting noticed. President Biden is getting noticed for his comment on the second anniversary of the revocation of ROE vs. Wade, a process that he says is caused by Donald Donald Trump.

BREAKING: Lady Gaga just delivered one of the most powerful rebukes of Donald Trump this year. It’s safe to say that Lady Gaga will be supporting President Biden. Retweet so all Americans see this. pic.twitter.com/JbUip7jNNn
— Biden’s Wins (@BidensWins) June 24, 2024

Three Presidents Who Are Respected Around The World

This is Trump’s Project 2025 pic.twitter.com/BpDo3rIK4r
— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) June 25, 2024

There Is A Giant Difference Between The Two. When You Vote – It Is For Freedom!

Former President Donald Trump was widely mocked after claiming to a crowd of supporters that he has “wounds all over my body” that they could see if he took his shirt off.

Trump delivered the keynote address at the “Road to Majority” conference in Washington, D.C., organized by the conservative Christian political advocacy group, Faith and Freedom Coalition, on Saturday.

For example, Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy were assassinated while still in office.

Notably, Ronald Reagan was the victim of an attempted assassination in 1981 when a bullet fired by John Hinckley Jr. shot him in the underarm, broke one of his ribs, and punctured one of his lungs, causing significant internal bleeding. Reagan went on to serve two terms in office.

In one of the more oddball moments in American history, Andrew Jackson in 1835 was attacked by an unemployed house painter whose pistols misfired—and promptly beat his failed assassin with his walking cane.

And it is perhaps darkly comic that Theodore Roosevelt survived a 1912 assassination attempt after the assassin’s bullet became lodged in a folded copy of a speech Roosevelt was carrying in his breast pocket at the time.

By contrast, Trump has never been in a similar position. Nor has he ever served in combat or sustained any wounds whatsoever considering he infamously dodged the Vietnam War draft by claiming he had bone spurs in his foot (a fact he has periodically downplayed).

See the full report here!

“Why do you back Joe Biden if you advocate for more young people in office?”

FeaturedLeave a comment

A Reanalysis by Benjamin G. benandsteve.com

This election isn’t about pitting the young against the old. It’s about ensuring that Gen Z and Millennials, who constitute a significant third of our nation’s population, have representation that mirrors their presence.

_{^{David Hogg Leaders We Deserve}}
_{^{PBS Interview}}

Although remembered as older, numerous influential leaders initiated their activism in their youth. We aim to support these leaders—like John Lewis, who embarked on a mission for vital change at a young age and became one of our country’s most pivotal and influential leaders.

Our goal is straightforward: elect more youthful leaders capable of introducing fresh perspectives into our government.

Numerous barriers have historically prevented young people from entering public service and achieving the representation they deserve. Those who support America for all should make every effort to assist young candidates in overcoming these obstacles.

After the setbacks of 2016, the 2018 blue wave brought the Democratic Party a renewed recognition of the influence young voters wield. In 2020, Joe Biden’s election, which was largely driven by the substantial turnout from Millennial and Gen Z voters, showcased the power of youthful participation. Your voice matters, and your vote can shape the course of our nation.

_{^{Vist The Post On Leaders We Deserve Winning!}}

In 2022, young voters reaffirmed their electoral influence, thwarting the anticipated “red wave.” Emerging young leaders like Justin Jones in Tennessee and Maxwell Frost in Florida gained prominence. Groups like “Leaders We Deserve” also celebrated their first endorsement success with Nadarius Clark’s election in Virginia.

_{^{Listen To Interview}} _{^{of radio interview}}

The benefits of electing young leaders extend beyond Gen Z and Millennials; they enrich the nation and shape our future. Commencing political involvement at a young age capitalizes on time, making it a potent political ally. Gen Z’s potential longevity in Capitol Hill eclipses many, underscoring the urgency of their ascent to power. The time to act is now.

If you resonate with a mission and aspire to bolster the election of deserving leaders in 2024 and beyond, please act to support feasible campaigns like “Leaders We Deserve” to support their endeavors or find a campaign that will help elect a Democratic Candidate to office.

A Vote For Trump Is A Vote Against Democracy! Remember, Vote Blue When You Do!

Challenges and Solutions for Homelessness in America

FeaturedLeave a comment

BY: BENJAMIN G

My household has always maintained a relatively liberal understanding of the country’s homeless situation. We disagree with outlawing their right to exist and have a place to live and shelter. They are, after all, doing the best they can with the current housing, employment, transportation, or other issues they face. Let them be!

That is what our stance has been all along, until we went out to breakfast this past weekend and the police department was herding a group along the main boulevard we take to our restaurant. They appeared to be the characters you don’t want to run into in a dark alley at night—or daytime, for that matter. For Christ’s sake, were they planning to put roots down behind our neighborhood. We have a wall around the place, but salespeople always jump in and try to knock on doors. We have security but are not the type that can handle these characters. Every winter, we have a homeless troupe that typically arrives and camps near a river, but they are the same people every year, and they are like the snowbirds who flow in and out of the area from the north. These new homeless characters were of a family we never experienced before.

And that is what is scaring so many in America. The police found a suitable place for the troupe to travel on to, and there were no more sights of them after that initial spotting. But that is different for many in the country. These homeless populations inundate their communities, and it is an issue they have never before had to face. What if they are following suit? How many more will come? What problems will they bring with them? Will the property values deflate wherever they plant a stake? Jesus, are they diseased?

California has spent billions of dollars trying to fix its homeless problem and has failed to find a solution. The issue is greater there now than ever. Affordable housing remains unobtainable to those needing it. California is asking people to build tiny homes in their backyards, garages, wherever there is space, and make them available to house people. The problem is, if folks don’t want them in their alleys, will they want them in their garages?

Locally in Phoenix, Arizona. My husband hired an unhoused person years ago and knew she was, although she had not disclosed so on her introduction form. He worked with her schedule to make sure she kept her employment, and within six months, she was able to get a studio apartment, moving from her car. She then told him. He said he knew all along, and that is why he had worked so hard to keep her going, and she turned out to be one of the best employees. Such an example may not be the case with every person, but it is an example of how we can attribute ourselves to improving the situation one person at a time.

While feeling uneasy about sudden changes in your community is natural, it’s important to remember that homelessness is not a choice for many people. They often face a variety of challenges, including mental health issues, substance abuse, lack of affordable housing, and unemployment, which can contribute to their situation.

As for the broader issue of homelessness, it’s clear that a comprehensive and compassionate approach is needed to address the root causes and provide effective solutions. This approach may include increasing access to affordable housing, expanding mental health and addiction services, and providing job training and employment opportunities for homeless individuals.

The Supreme Court now has the issue, and the Lord only knows what they will come up with. But no doubt Texas will pass a law ordering the execution of all homeless people after 30 days of being homeless.

Biden’s Time In Office VS. Trump’s.

April 21, 2024April 21, 2024BenjaminLeave a comment

Question on Quora –

Joe Biden has taken 382 vacation days off to date. That equates to over one full year on vacation out of 3 years as US president. Is he the most ineffective US president in history?

Answered by Benjamin via benandsteve.com

We take your word it was 382. I need President Biden’s schedule to confirm such details. Since the job is 24/7, 365 days a year, you never have any privacy, nor a day without less than twenty interruptions, even when on vacation. The vacation days alone don’t necessarily reflect a president’s effort. Being president is a demanding job that comes with its own set of challenges and responsibilities. While the president must take breaks and maintain a work-life balance, one should consider the number of vacation days in the broader context of one president over another president’s performance, decision-making, and leadership.

Every presidency has challenges and circumstances, and comparing one president’s vacation days to another does not give a comprehensive view of their effectiveness. When evaluating a presidency’s effectiveness, it’s also essential to consider the accomplishments, policies enacted, and challenges faced.

The information provided may be more accurate or presented better to portray a specific narrative. It’s always a good idea to fact-check information and consider multiple perspectives before forming an opinion.

For a fact, here’s what Biden didn’t do:

He never only started his work days around 11 am or 11:3AM, crisis or not.

Never made an ass out of himself on a global stage.

Never has had disregards to promises made during his campaign.

He Never has been impeached.

Biden didn’t get impeached a second time.

Biden never had to survive a Senate trial that most senators later – admit that they should’ve voted and should’ve been guilty.

Biden didn’t get indicted – FOUR TIMES.

It wasn’t Biden who tried overturning the People’s Will in the 2020 *Election by inciting an insurrection!

No Biden didn’t call the Georgia Secretary of State and attempt to *Strong arm him into creating 12,000 more votes in his favor.

Biden didn’t take papers from the national archives and refuse to return them to the United States Government. Going as far as to tell employees to hide the location of the boxes that contained them from authorities. Then, he agreed to return them and never did so. Then, having the stated allegations recorded on the video camera and denying it was real, lying to the FBI (also a crime.)

The list of things President Biden never did could go on, but it would be easier if you tuned into Court TV Monday through Friday.

Those are the differences you can make between Biden and Trump, which is just the start!

QUESTIONING AND REEVALUATING LONG-HELD BELIEFS AND ENCOURAGING DIALOGUE, UNDERSTANDING AND ACCEPTANCE?

April 20, 2024April 20, 2024BenjaminLeave a comment

The documentary “1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted a Culture” delves into a controversial and thought-provoking topic that challenges conventional beliefs about the Bible and homosexuality. Directed by Sharon “Rocky” Roggio, the film examines the claim that the Bible originally did not mention homosexuality and that references to it were added due to mistranslation and misunderstanding of ancient Greek terms.

The film highlights the work of Christian scholars who delve into forgotten archives at Yale University to uncover the origins of this mistranslation. It argues that conservative Christians began to propagate this mistranslation in the 1970s to scapegoat the LGBTQ+ community and oppose their growing liberation movement.

Roggio, who identifies as a lesbian and is the daughter of an evangelical minister, engages in dialogues with her father throughout the film, attempting to find common ground and challenge his beliefs about homosexuality being a sin. This personal narrative adds depth and emotion to the documentary, as it explores the complexities of faith, identity, and acceptance within a family divided by differing views on sexuality and religion.

The documentary sheds light on the potential harm caused by misunderstandings and misinterpretations of religious texts, highlighting the real-world consequences faced by LGBTQ+ individuals who have been marginalized, discriminated against, and even persecuted due to these beliefs.

Overall, “1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted a Culture” offers a compelling perspective on a contentious issue, urging viewers to question and reevaluate long-held beliefs and encouraging dialogue, understanding, and acceptance.

1-888-843-4564

^{_{Photo by Alexander Grey on Pexels.com}}

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender National Hotline 1-888-843-4564. “The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender National Hotline provide telephone and email peer-counseling, as well as factual information and local resources for cities and towns across the United States.

The Difference Between Scranton Joe And Don The Con. A Whole Lot!

FeaturedLeave a comment

You’ve undoubtedly heard a comprehensive debate about the economic situation during the transition from Trump to Biden.

^{_{Photo by Andrew Neel on Pexels.com}}

Indeed, the economic conditions at the end of Trump’s term were challenging due to the pandemic, and Biden inherited an economy facing significant headwinds. The pandemic’s impact on the economy was unprecedented, affecting employment, consumption, and global demand.

However, public perception and political narratives often prioritize certain aspects of an administration’s performance while downplaying others. People’s opinions become shaped by various factors, including media coverage, partisan affiliation, personal experiences, and messaging from political leaders.

_{^{Photo by Jozemara Friorili Lemes on Pexels.com}}

Trump had shut down the United States of America, a fact that nearly every American forgets today. They need to remember the closed stores, the empty shelves, the closed restaurants, the doctor’s office that had to refuse patients, hospitals that were so full no one could visit, and nursing homes where loved ones had to stand outside and wave to loved ones from the street, and Funeral Homes so full they were using rental refrigerator trucks to store bodies—the toilet paper shortages. That was Trump’s Administration. Biden had to clean it up. He received much blame for what must occur to get the nation back on track. But he got to work, and the country got back to life.

Here are a few points to consider when thinking about why public opinion might differ between Trump and Biden regarding the economy:

Partisan Bias: Political affiliations can heavily influence people’s views on the economy. Republicans may be more inclined to credit Trump for positive economic developments during his term and blame external factors like the pandemic for any downturns. Conversely, Democrats may be more critical of Trump’s handling of the economy and more forgiving of the challenges Biden faced upon taking office.
Messaging and Framing: Political leaders and media outlets shape public opinion. How economic data and policies get reported can influence people’s perceptions of the economy’s performance. Trump was known for touting positive economic indicators during his term, influencing public perception despite the broader challenges.
Another significant factor that shapes public opinion on the economy is personal experience. People’s direct economic situations, such as job loss, financial hardship, or financial gains, can profoundly impact their views. For instance, someone who experienced a job loss or financial hardship during Trump’s term might have a negative view of his economic policies. Conversely, if someone benefited from tax cuts or saw their investments grow, they might have a more positive perception. Complexity of Economic Issues: Economic conditions are influenced by a multitude of factors, including global trends, monetary policy, fiscal policy, and more. It can be challenging for the average person to parse through these complexities and assign credit or blame to a particular administration accurately.

P^{_{hoto by Anna Tarazevich on Pexels.com}}

In conclusion, public opinion on the economy is multifaceted, and partisan biases could dominate messaging, personal experiences, and the complexity of economic issues. While the data presented paints a challenging economic picture at the end of Trump’s term, public perception is by broader factors. And it is conveniently forgotten!

Praying At The State House

April 18, 2024April 19, 2024BenjaminLeave a comment

When A Law Maker Takes Amen Corner To The People’s House

In a scene straight out of a dystopian movie about America’s collapse into christofascism, here’s a video of Arizona State Senator Anthony Kern and his group of anti-abortion zealots on their hand and knees in the the AZ State House Chamber of the state capital, engaging in tongues-praying for the reinstatement of a near-total abortion ban from 1864.

_{^{Image is not that of any person appearing in report}.}

Kern — a former code enforcement officer who was fired for lying and “string of other disciplinary problems” — can be seen on the carpet with his gang of extremists circled around the Arizona state seal in the carpet, babbling fervently for divine intervention to resurrect a Civil War-era law.

As Public affairs strategist Tony Cani points out, the real kicker is that they didn’t even need to pray; the groundwork for this moment had been meticulously laid out years prior.

That sounds like a striking and controversial scene, blending elements of politics, religion, and history. The image you’ve painted paints a vivid picture of the tensions surrounding issues like abortion and the intersection of religion and politics in American society.

It’s always concerning when political figures engage in such public displays of religious fervor to push a specific agenda, especially when it involves legislation that could significantly impact people’s lives. The blending of state and religious symbols in a governmental chamber can raise questions about the separation of church and state, a foundational principle in the United States.

The fact that Senator Anthony Kern has a history of disciplinary problems adds another layer of complexity to the situation. It raises questions about his credibility and the motivations behind such a public and symbolic act.

Tony Cani’s observation about the groundwork being laid out years prior underscores the idea that these moments are often carefully orchestrated for maximum impact. It highlights the strategic nature of political theater and the lengths to which some will go to advance their agenda.

It’s essential for citizens to remain informed and critically evaluate these actions, ensuring that decisions made by elected officials are in the best interest of all constituents and uphold the principles of democracy and justice.

One could bring up a valid point about the intersection of religion and politics, especially when politicians use religious displays as a means to appear more righteous or to gain public support for their agenda. The scripture from Matthew 6:5-8 that is mentioned highlights the importance of sincerity and humility in religious practice, cautioning against performative acts of piety.

Photo by Asad Photo Maldives on Pexels.com

When politicians engage in public displays of religious fervor, it can raise questions about their sincerity and motivations. Are they genuinely acting out of religious conviction, or are they using religion as a tool to advance their political goals? The line between genuine faith and political opportunism can become blurred, leading to skepticism and mistrust among the public.

It’s essential for voters and citizens to be discerning and critical of such displays, ensuring that they hold their elected officials accountable for their actions and motivations. Blind acceptance of religious or political rhetoric without critical evaluation can lead to the exploitation of faith for political gain.

Ultimately, the misuse of religion for political purposes can undermine the true essence of faith, which should be centered on love, compassion, and genuine connection with the divine, rather than on power, control, or political advantage.