Federal authorities are reportedly reviewing a growing number of deaths and disappearances involving scientists and researchers tied to aerospace, military, and nuclear-related programs across the United States — cases that are now drawing increasing public scrutiny and online speculation.
Among the names receiving renewed attention is Monica Jacinto Reza, a materials engineer associated with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and aerospace contractor Aerojet Rocketdyne, who disappeared while hiking in California during June 2025. Reza has not been located.
Her disappearance is one of several cases involving individuals connected to sensitive government research programs.
Retired Air Force Major General William “Neil” McCasland, former commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory, vanished from his Albuquerque residence in February 2026. Authorities stated personal belongings, including communication devices, remained at the home.
Anthony Chavez, formerly employed by Los Alamos National Laboratory, disappeared in New Mexico during May 2025.
Meanwhile, several researchers tied to NASA or affiliated scientific institutions have died in recent years under circumstances that continue drawing online attention, including Michael David Hicks, Frank Maiwald, and Caltech astrophysicist Carl Grillmair.
At present, there is no publicly available evidence establishing a direct connection among the cases.
Yet the growing public reaction may reveal something equally significant: the continuing erosion of trust between Americans and their institutions.
On social media and cable television, discussion surrounding the disappearances has increasingly merged with broader fears involving political extremism, government secrecy, foreign influence operations, surveillance, and authoritarian behavior.
Experts warn that such speculation often accelerates during periods of institutional distrust, particularly when official explanations are limited, delayed, or incomplete.
“What changes societies,” one former intelligence analyst noted in a previous national security forum, “is not always the event itself, but whether the public believes the explanation afterward.”
That concern appears increasingly visible in the United States.
Public distrust has intensified amid political polarization, expanding federal power debates, immigration crackdowns, aggressive rhetoric surrounding dissent, and ongoing controversy involving executive authority.
“History shows that when trust collapses, societies begin feeding themselves urban legends dressed in political clothing.”
In previous decades, Americans often associated political disappearances and unexplained deaths with unstable governments abroad. Increasingly, however, those same fears are appearing within domestic political discourse itself.
Whether these individual cases ultimately prove connected or entirely unrelated, they have exposed a growing national anxiety difficult to ignore:
Millions of Americans no longer feel certain they are being told the truth.
And once a nation reaches that point, speculation becomes unavoidable.
And those are only some of the names now circulating in reports, congressional discussions, online investigations, and cable news speculation.
To be absolutely clear: There is currently no public evidence proving these cases are connected.
But that disclaimer no longer calms people the way it once would have.
Because Americans have entered an age where trust in institutions has collapsed so completely that many citizens now instinctively believe the worst explanations first.
That alone should terrify us.
At the same time these disappearances fail to dominate headlines, Americans are watching dramatic changes around the White House itself — including controversy surrounding Trump’s proposed ballroom construction and expanding concrete work near the executive complex. In another era, Americans might have dismissed dark speculation instantly.
Today many no longer do.
Not because evidence exists. But because confidence no longer exists.
History shows what happens when governments stop answering questions clearly. Rumors become accepted reality. Fear replaces trust. Citizens begin wondering whether powerful people can make opponents, critics, immigrants, journalists — or scientists — simply vanish.
That is not supposed to happen in America.
Yet here we are.
Maybe every one of these tragedies has an unrelated explanation. Maybe every disappearance is coincidence. Maybe every death is exactly what officials say it is.
But when scientists connected to sensitive aerospace, military, and nuclear work begin disappearing across multiple states, Americans are going to ask questions.
And they should.
Because the moment citizens stop asking where people went… is the moment freedom itself begins disappearing too.
Yet today there begins a modern folklore, an urban legend – people online are asking “have they moved Jimmy Hoffa” and asking “is he now under Trump’s Ball room?” Or, “is that where the other bodies are going?” The message boards and threads are running wild. Whether as a citizen, or spectator from another country, please continue to do what is needed – keep asking questions.
This Story Originally Appeared On November 1st, 2025. On November 26th a shooting resulted in Washington D.C. It looks as if it resulted from pressure placed on an individual. A person identified from a sect or community. You can read the story connected to that event here. then consider the contents of this story and decide for yourself. It is not difficult to have predicted. More will come.
10–16 minutes
In every generation, the United States stands at a crossroads of its own making. From the outside, our country can look unstoppable. From the inside, we often feel the push and pull of competing values. These include hopes and fears. Beneath the headlines and politics are real people—neighbors, families, workers—trying to live meaningful lives. When pressure builds in a society, it rarely announces itself with fanfare. Instead, it creeps in quietly, showing up as worry, disconnection, or a sense that something familiar is shifting. This story isn’t about sensational headlines but about those quiet pressures—economic, social, and cultural—that can change a nation’s future.
Deportation, Prejudice, and the Risk of History Repeating
When governments treat specific communities as disposable, they create wounds. These often fester into something more dangerous. Today in the United States, many Hispanic families live under the shadow of deportation. They are sometimes sent to countries that are not their place of origin. Worse still, many are denied fair hearings or meaningful access to justice before being removed.
This pattern, though uniquely American in its details, has historical echoes elsewhere.
Lessons from Israel and Its Neighbors
Globally, people are voicing similar worries. Inflation, poverty, unemployment, and corruption rank highest worldwide. Local details differ, yet the underlying pressures on ordinary families are strikingly alike from one country to another.
In the Middle East, decades of restrictive policies have shaped the relationship between Israel and its neighbors. Palestinians have endured travel restrictions, settlement expansion, home demolitions, and barriers to full participation in civic life. While not every individual responds with violence, these systemic grievances have fueled a climate where radical groups gain traction. Street shootings, bombings, and attacks on innocent civilians are, in part, the tragic outcome of exclusion and marginalization.
When justice is denied, resentment grows. History shows us what happens when exclusion takes root. Will the U.S. repeat Israel’s mistakes?
The lesson is not that oppression always leads to terrorism. Yet, when large communities feel silenced, denied justice, or stripped of dignity, it becomes easier for extremism to take root.
The American Parallel
For many Hispanic communities in the U.S., there is growing concern that the same cycle begins here. Families who have lived in this country for years are uprooted without warning. Children who know no other homeland are deported to countries where they have no ties. Legal safeguards that should guarantee fairness are often bypassed through expedited removal or administrative shortcuts.
Deportation without dignity doesn’t just break families—it risks breaking society. Lessons from abroad show what happens when whole communities are silenced.
The danger is not only humanitarian—it is practical. Alienation breeds resentment. Resentment, left unchecked, can lead to anger that is so strong it erupts in harmful ways. If citizens and residents consistently feel betrayed by the very government meant to protect them, feelings of betrayal grow. Over time, these feelings lead to instability akin to that seen in other parts of the world.
A Cautionary Reflection
The United States faces a choice. It can double down on policies that treat Hispanic people as outsiders. Alternatively, it can recognize that fairness, dignity, and due process are not luxuries—they are stabilizers. By ensuring justice and compassion, the U.S. can protect both its people and its principles.
History reminds us that exclusion never produces lasting peace. Inclusion does. If America forgets this, it risks repeating a painful lesson already written across borders far from its own.
Exclusion never creates peace. Inclusion does. The United States must choose which future it wants.
As this report was being prepared on September 10, 2025. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a speaking event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. He was addressing an audience as part of his “American Comeback Tour.” When a gunman, described as wearing tactical gear, opened fire from a nearby building. The event was not just violent in its outcome. It’s now being discussed widely as an example of how political tensions, rising polarization. Public rhetoric can set the stage for tragedy. AP News+3Reuters+3People.com+3
This shooting stands as a stark reminder of what happens when communities feel threatened, unheard, or unfairly treated. When specific policies—like deportations without fair hearings, rhetoric that pits “us vs. them,” or laws that strip rights from people—are merged with public disdain, alienation can grow. As with Kirk’s death, violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It is often preceded by months or years of escalating division, distrust, and dehumanizing language toward some group.
If similar pressures continue—where people feel they are being denied justice. Or they will be forced into exile, or silenced—the risk is not only that isolated individuals will lash out. More of these attacks will spill into public spaces, become more common, and target more people. Charlie Kirk’s shooting is tragic and shocking. Still it also foreshadows a pattern we’ve seen before elsewhere: oppression + exclusion + inflammatory rhetoric = violence.
THE QUESTION NOW FACING THE UNITED STATES
The U.S. be trailing a path? Is government policy and public rhetoric pushing some communities to a breaking point? Exclusion and injustice be more than grievances, becoming catalysts for violence?
Israel offers a stark example. It shows what can happen when a nation attempts to dominate or control another people or region. Despite decades of military action, surveillance, imprisonment, and harsh policies, the country faces ongoing terrorist attacks. These actions occur within its own borders. History shows that no matter the tactics, attempts to subjugate or marginalize an entire population often breed resentment. Such approaches lead to cycles of violence rather than lasting security.
Recent polling reveals Americans’ top worries focus on daily life basics. These include the economy, healthcare costs, inflation, and Social Security. Economic anxiety has become the leading stress point—and understanding it is key to shaping effective public policy.
In the United States, millions of people belong to the LGBTQI community—transgender, gay, intersex, and beyond. If laws or court rulings increasingly target these groups with discriminatory restrictions or hardships, the effect won’t just be legal. It will erode their existing rights and impact them deeply on a human level. People who feel cornered, threatened, or stripped of dignity often turn to protest, activism, and self-defense. Families, friends, and allies of LGBTQI individuals will stand with them. History shows that when marginalized communities are pushed too far, their collective response grows stronger. They become more determined, whether through the courts, the ballot box, or public action.
There are case studies in why inclusion and fairness matter. Disenfranchisement can occur across many lines. These include ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, or economic status. Prevention starts with recognizing early warning signs. It involves pushing for fairness and empathy. Other groups and individuals will be targeted in this sweeping of Americans’ rights.
1. Immigrant and Refugee Communities Beyond Latin America
People from African nations, the Middle East, or Asia sometimes experience parallel challenges. They face deportation, limited due process, and suspicion tied to their nationality or religion. Policies that reduce refugee admissions, delay asylum processing, or tighten visa rules disproportionately affect them.
2. Religious Minorities
Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, and other smaller faith groups have seen spikes in harassment or targeted legislation. Surveillance, mosque or temple zoning battles, and hate crimes all increase when public rhetoric frames these groups as”others.”
3. Indigenous Peoples
Tribal communities continue to face legal battles over land, water, and sovereignty. Changes to federal protections or environmental rules can undermine their rights. This fuels deep distrust and potential standoffs (for example, Standing Rock and other pipeline protests).
4. People With Disabilities
Budget cuts or shifts in healthcare, accessibility regulations, or education funding can affect people with physical or cognitive disabilities. Without legal protections and enforcement, they risk losing access to accommodations and services they depend on.
5. Women and Reproductive Rights
If policies continue restricting reproductive healthcare and bodily autonomy, many women feel increasingly alienated. This is especially true for those in rural and low-income areas. Such feelings lead to organized protest. It also heightens tensions.
6. Workers in Precarious or Gig Jobs
With unions weakened and worker protections often rolled back, low-wage and gig-economy workers are also vulnerable to systemic neglect. Economic insecurity can create fertile ground for unrest, especially if merged with racial or immigration-related grievances.
On a hot summer’s day, if you stir any of these pots, something unhappy will happen. Similarly, if you keep someone locked out on a cold winter’s day, the outcome will be negative. It used to be the explosive reaction we referred to as Cabin-Fever when someone no longer can take the pressure. When so many groups are pushed to the point of not being capable to handle it. What happens? America already has more firearms than any country in the world. It shouldn’t take much research to realize that becoming Palestine-Israel would be easier than ever. It would also be more violent than people thought.
Exclusion never creates peace. Inclusion does. America must choose which future it wants.
There are Americans who are also to be considered part of the LGBTQI community. If laws or Supreme Court rulings turn against the transgender, Gay members, or Intersex community, these laws can cause hardships. Further restrictions can come into their lives. At some point, they and their families, friends, and supporters are going to find ways to defend themselves.
Yes — beyond the Hispanic and LGBTQI communities already discussed, there are several other groups. Experts and advocates often recognize these groups as vulnerable. These groups are often affected by shifts in policy, public sentiment, or legal rulings. Here’s a quick overview:
How Many Transgender People Have Been Mass Shooters?
This chart shows just how rare transgender or nonbinary mass shooters are in the U.S.—less than 1% of cases compared to an overwhelming majority by cisgender men. It’s a clear reminder that public narratives blaming LGBTQ+ people for mass violence are unsupported by facts.
How many trans shooters are there in real life?
Officially, the short answer: very, very few. Credible databases don’t systematically record gender identity. Still, the best available analyses show well under 1% of U.S. mass shooters have identified as transgender or nonbinary—i.e., only a handful of cases across many decades. Social Sciences and Humanities College+1
A few notes for context:
The Violence Project’s long-running database (public mass shootings, 4+ killed) shows hundreds of incidents since 1966. Researchers and fact-checks confirm that transgender perpetrators account for less than 1% of cases. This is in the low single digits in total. The Violence Project+1
News reporting that tries to tally specific incidents similarly finds just a few cases. It also cautions that many official datasets code by sex, not gender identity, which limits precision. Newsweek
Independent fact-checks conclude that claims of a “rise” in transgender mass shooters are unsupported. The vast majority of mass shooters are cisgender men. Reuters
Bottom line: Exact counts are hard to pin down because of data limitations. The evidence consistently shows that transgender people make up a vanishingly small share of U.S. mass shooters.
“Fewer than ten transgender athletes out of 510,000 NCAA players.
Yet, they’re at the center of a multi-million-dollar political storm.”
This makes sense—transgender people represent a very small part of the population, and their visibility often makes them targets. Out of more than 510,000 NCAA college athletes nationwide, it’s estimated that fewer than ten are openly transgender. Historically, families—including our grandparents and their grandparents—have coexisted with transgender individuals without controversy. Only in recent years have political attacks escalated, turning a once-private aspect of life into a public battleground. These attacks have generated hundreds of millions of dollars. Groups and politicians use transgender people as a wedge issue. They target individuals who are simply trying to live their lives.
What We Know (or Think We Know)
According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, about 300,000 youth aged 13–17 recognize as transgender in the U.S. Williams Institute
Of those, some studies suggest ~40.7% of transgender high school students play on at least one sports team. Applying that to the population estimate gives around 120,000+ transgender high school student-athletes Williams Institute
Nonetheless, when it comes to more specific breakdowns (e.g. how many play in women’s teams, or how many are in college/pro sports), the numbers are much smaller. For example, GLAAD reports that among ~510,000 NCAA college athletes, there are fewer than 10 known transgender athletesGLAAD
Key Takeaways & Limitations
Small in relative terms: Tens of thousands of transgender youth join in high school sports. Still, they are still a very tiny fraction of all athletes.
Very few at higher levels: At the college or professional levels, the known, openly transgender athletes are very rare (under 10 in the NCAA among all those athletes, per recent reports) GLAAD+1
Data gaps: Many sports associations don’t track gender identity carefully. Privacy concerns, inconsistent reporting, and changing eligibility rules make precise numbers hard to nail down.
Exclusion never creates peace. Inclusion does. The United States must choose which future it wants.
Yet even in times of strain, The United States of America greatest strength has always been its capacity to self-correct. Communities do not simply absorb pressure—they also adapt, innovate, and rise to meet challenges. We have the chance now to choose empathy over division, solutions over rhetoric, and inclusion over exclusion. If we remember that the country’s heart beats strongest when its people are treated with fairness and dignity. Then the same forces that threaten to divide us can also become the sparks that unite us. This is not just a warning—it’s an invitation to hope.
This content was originally intended to be posted on September 11, 2025. Due to unfolding events at that time, its publication was postponed until November 1, 2025. The research began weeks before events on September 10, 2025 in Utah. If extra events have occurred since then, this report reflects the level of concern. It highlights the growing sense of unease emerging across the United States.
About the Author:
Benjamin Groff is a former police officer and radio news anchor. He has hosted programs for CNN and ABC News affiliates in Colorado and Wyoming. His career in law enforcement began in 1980 and lasted more than two decades. This gave him firsthand insight into the criminal mind and public safety. Moreover, it provided him with an understanding of the human stories that often go untold. His writing draws on these experiences, blending street-level truth with a journalist’s eye for the bigger picture.
The Howard family always seemed so functional to their neighbors in Bessieville. Their home glowed warmly in the evenings. The paint was always fresh, the hedges trimmed. To the outside world, the Howard’s — Frank, Lois, and their three boys — were the picture of American perfection.
Frank Howard worked as a supervisor at the local airplane plant. Lois split her time between home and the grocery store checkout. Their sons, Mark, Tim, and John, were the type of kids people admired. Others often said, “Now there’s a good family.”
So when Lois stumbled across the box in John’s room, she felt her stomach drop. Inside were pamphlets, flyers, and web printouts — literature no parent ever expects to find.
Frank walked in just as she was holding one, her hand trembling. “Ann,” he said, “what’s going on?”
“I—I hope this is for a school paper,” she stammered. “I don’t know why he’d have this stuff. There’s so much of it!”
Frank thumbed through the stack. “Holy hell. Does he even know what this thing does to people? We raised him better than this.”
Moments later, Mark dropped by to visit. Seeing his parents in his brother’s room, he asked, “What’s up? You two look like you just found a body.”
Ann handed him a pamphlet. Mark’s eyes widened. “Where’s he get this? Do you think he’s…?”
Both parents answered in unison: “No! God no!”
Before they speculate further, Frank’s phone buzzed. It was their middle son, Tim. “Hey Pop, I’ve been calling the house — Ma not answering again? Everything okay?”
Frank hesitated. “We just have… a situation. Did you ever notice your brother getting into anything strange lately?”
Tim laughed. “What’d he do, join a cult?”
Ann shouted from across the room: “Yes! That’s exactly what it looks like!”
Within the hour, Tim was racing home. A few fraternity brothers were in tow. He called them his “Frat-Team.”
When they arrived, Frank showed them the contents of the box. One of the frat boys, a computer science major, said, “Let’s check his laptop.” Within minutes, they uncovered a disturbing digital trail. When they turned the screen toward Frank, he muttered, “I need a drink.”
By now, the grandparents had arrived. The house was full. They decided to wait for John’s return, convinced they “save” him from whatever this was.
At 8:30 sharp, the back door creaked open. “Hey,” John said, stepping inside. “What’s with all the cars? Mom selling Tupperware again?”
“Sit in the yellow chair,” Frank said. His voice left no room for argument. “And don’t say a word.”
John sat, confused. “Son,” Lois began, “are you… flirting around with extremists?”
John blinked. “What? Ma, I don’t think so.”
Frank held up one of the pamphlets. “Then what’s this?”
Suddenly, John’s tone hardened. His face twisted with anger. “You people are blind! You sit here preaching love and tolerance while the country rots from the inside out. You call it compassion — I call it weakness!”
The room fell silent.
Grandpa Howard stood, slapped his knee, and gasped. “My God — he’s a conservative!”
Grandma wailed, “Frank! Ann! You’ve got yourselves a Republican!”
Mark leaned back in his wheelchair, groaning. “It’s worse. He’s been indoctrinated. He’s deep into it — the algorithms, the podcasts, the memes…”
Ann sobbed. “How did this happen? We raised him right. We had PBS, not Fox!”
Frank gritted his teeth. “We can fix this. There’s a camp that reverses it. Teaches kids empathy again.”
The frat boys nodded. “Or we can bring him to a few Pride Parades,” one said. “Exposure therapy.”
That’s when John exploded. He cursed his family. He hurled coasters across the room. He shouted about “real patriots” and “fighting the deep state.”
No one noticed the faint red light blinking on one frat boy’s phone. They’d been recording the whole scene.
Moments later, two uniformed officers stepped inside — Toby and Rex. Toby, a family friend, looked bewildered. “Good Lord, what’s going on here? Is he possessed?”
Rex shook his head solemnly. “No. I’ve seen it before. Same thing happened to my parents. They started watching those ‘news’ streams online. By Thanksgiving, they were threatening to burn our pronoun mugs.”
Ann gasped. “Oh sweet Jesus.”
Frank turned toward his son, voice trembling between rage and heartbreak. “John, listen to me. We can still get you back. But we have to act now. Before it’s too late.”
John sneered. “Too late for what? To stop me from voting?”
And with that, he stormed out the door, leaving the room in stunned silence.
Grandpa finally muttered, “Well, guess the boy’s all grown up now.”
The family sat frozen — the hum of the refrigerator filling the void where laughter used to live.
In the background the local television news reported bloody attacks on black students leaving a GED Class that evening. The suspects identified as young white males. Who used Molotov cocktails yelling white power and God chooses a white America as they escaped on bicycles.
Outside, the streetlight flickered over the Howards’ perfect little home. It was still warm and still well-kept. Now, forever, it is just a little bit haunted.
Everywhere we look, the signs of division are clear. Our conversations have turned into shouting matches, our communities into factions, and even the smallest differences into battle lines. A nation divided can’t stand strong. But there is another path. It does not ask us to agree on everything. Instead, it asks us to bring ourselves into spaces that center peace and shared purpose.
The Power of a Centered Community
When we step away from division and enter a group that is centered and peaceful, something remarkable happens. The noise quiets down. Respect returns to the conversation. We start to see each other not as opponents. Instead, we see each other as fellow human beings. We recognize struggles, joys, and hopes that are more alike than different. These kinds of communities create an environment where empathy can thrive—and empathy is the root of unity.
A Call to Unite Around a Common Cause
Now more than ever, we need to reclaim what unites us. Not political slogans, not party lines—but a shared wish for dignity, fairness, and belonging. The call is simple: bring yourself, with open hands and an open heart, to a group that fosters peace. Choose to engage in a way that builds bridges instead of burning them. Let’s unite around the common cause of healing our communities, so that we can heal our nation.
Closing Thought
Division is loud, but peace is stronger. Every voice that chooses compassion over conflict adds weight to the side of unity. The choice begins with each of us—will we contribute to the noise, or to the harmony?
Will Americans loose more Civil Rights With Republicans In control? Mike Lee, Trump, and others are pushing the Project 2025 Playbook. It sure looks like the Constitution’s articles are under threat and today’s GOP will lead to its undoing.
THE RESPONSE
You’ve raised a critical concern. The answer is: yes. Under a Republican administration, there is influence exerted through tools like Project 2025. Many observers, civil‑rights organizations, and news outlets warn of significant threats to civil liberties and democratic norms.
What Is Project 2025?
Project 2025 is a policy blueprint authored by The Heritage Foundation. Contributions from former Trump staffers are included. It advocates for a sweeping restructuring of the executive branch. The plan expands presidential control over key agencies like the DOJ, FBI, DHS, and Department of Education. It seeks to install ideologically vetted loyalists, dismantle agency independence, and extend power across the executive branch.(1)
Critics label it an authoritarian and Christian-nationalist roadmap. It threatens civil rights protections. It also endangers democratic checks and balances and the rule of law.(2)
Key Threats to Civil Rights
Dismantling DEIA and Affirmative Action Safeguards
Executive Orders signed in January 2025 have abolished government DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility) initiatives, rescinded affirmative action mandates (e.g., EO 11246), and set in motion mass firings of employees affiliated with DEIA roles.(3)
Eroding Oversight of Discrimination
Project 2025 proposes ending the collection of race and gender data by the EEOC. This decision would cripple the government’s ability to detect and tackle employment discrimination. (4)
Weakening Voting Rights and Census Equity
The plan promotes a citizenship question on the census, which will suppress representation and resources for immigrant and minority communities. It also proposes limiting the DOJs role in election protection. Additionally, it suggests reforms to the FEC that would shift power to politically appointed commissioners.(4a)
Suppressing LGBTQ+, Black, Immigrant, and Other Communities’ Protections
Policies aim to curtail reproductive freedoms, strip LGBTQ rights, and dismantle educational protections—particularly in schools and public institutions. (5)
Consolidating Executive Power and Undermining the Courts
Project 2025 advocates for weakening independent oversight, firing Inspectors General, and enforcing loyalty tests—subverting professional integrity and rule of law.(6)
Shifting Federal Civil Rights Enforcement
Politicizing Justice Leadership
Appointments like that of Pam Bondi raise concerns about fairness in civil and voting rights enforcement. Their lack of independence from political influence is particularly worrisome.(7)
Broader Repercussions Reported by News Sources
Project 2025 has already sparked real-world impacts, like:
Mississippi implementing stricter abortion bans, voting restrictions, education rollbacks, and book censorship—reflecting Project 2025’s influence.(8)
Cancellation of Latino cultural festivals due to intensified ICE enforcement, demonstrating an atmosphere of fear in immigrant communities.(9)
A marked rollback on civil rights enforcement and protections in education and beyond. (9a)
In Summary
There is clear, mounting evidence.Republicans are in positions of control. They are involved in Project 2025. This involvement poses an existential threat to several pillars of civil rights. Republicans are in positions of control. Project 2025 is a concern. There is a threat to several pillars of civil rights. This threat includes dismantling DEI programs. It involves undermining federal oversight. Additionally, it consolidates executive power and targets marginalized communities across voting, education, employment, and beyond.
What You Can Do
Support and amplify the work of:
Civil rights organizations: ACLU, NAACP LDF, Urban League—many are actively litigating (e.g., National Urban League v. Trump contesting anti-DEIA executive orders) (10).
Voting and immigrant rights groups tracking suppression and census issues.
Local advocacy and grassroots movements fostering solidarity and resistance.
The Cost of Cutting Costs: Where Are the Savings Going?
In recent years, the Trump Administration has made headlines for its policy stances. It has also garnered attention for the sweeping federal cutbacks. These cutbacks have redefined the size and role of the federal government. Thousands of government employees have been laid off. Hundreds of federal offices have been shuttered. A wide range of services — from healthcare to environmental aid — has been reduced or eliminated entirely.
The administration has championed these actions as part of a broader effort to “drain the swamp.” They aim to reduce federal spending and ultimately return power and resources to American taxpayers. The rationale has been clear. A leaner federal government would lead to significant cost savings. It would result in a more efficient use of tax dollars. But many Americans are beginning to ask a critical question: Where are the savings?
Massive Reductions, Unclear Results
Among the most significant cutbacks:
Layoffs: Tens of thousands of federal workers across agencies have been laid off or had positions eliminated.
Office Closures: Many government-run facilities have been closed. These include Social Security branch offices and rural USDA outreach centers. This closure reduces accessibility for millions of Americans.
Social Programs Slashed: Legislation was recently passed. As a result, funding for programs like Medicaid and Medicare has been reduced. Food assistance and global humanitarian aid are also affected. Preventive services and outreach initiatives that once supported millions are being dismantled or left underfunded.
These cutbacks, in theory, should have freed up hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal budget. Many believed this money would reduce personal tax burdens. Others thought it would be used to invest in infrastructure or support domestic economic growth.
Yet, for the average citizen, these savings have not become visible.
Where Is the Relief?
If the government is spending less, why aren’t Americans seeing a difference in their tax bills? Why are services harder to access, but costs stay the same — or even rise?
Economists point to several possible explanations:
Redistribution of Savings: Much of the money saved through cutbacks has not been returned to taxpayers. Instead, it has been redirected toward defense spending and border enforcement. There are also tax breaks for corporations and high-income earners.
One-Time Costs of Downsizing: Severance packages, contract terminations, and administrative restructuring often generate short-term costs that offset early savings.
Unseen Long-Term Consequences: Cuts to health and humanitarian programs will result in higher long-term costs. These range from emergency medical care to international instability.
A Shift in Priorities
The Trump Administration has often framed these reductions as a necessary reset. They see it as a chance to shrink government. It is also viewed as an opportunity to re-center American values around individual responsibility and self-reliance. Nonetheless, critics argue that the effects are disproportionately felt by the vulnerable. The elderly and rural communities are significantly affected. Those who rely most on public services are also affected.
Meanwhile, for those expecting an immediate drop in taxes, there is little evidence to support those hopes. The same applies to a boost in services funded by savings.
Conclusion: The Hidden Costs of Cutting
In the end, the administration claims victory in trimming government “fat.” Yet, the benefits of those savings stay largely invisible to the average voter. Instead, Americans are paying the same or more for fewer services. They experience longer wait times and less support.
The promise of efficiency has been delivered, but at a human cost. The American people are still waiting for their return on investment.
🔍 Report: “Cutbacks, Promises, and Missing Payoffs”
1. The Layoff Machine
Estimated decline: Over 275,000 federal civil-sector layoffs have been announced under Trump’s second term—roughly 12% of the 2.4 million workforce—comprising 58,000 confirmed cuts, 76,000 buyouts, and 149,000 planned layoffs en.wikipedia.org.
Net reductions: As of March, the Office of Personnel Management reported a single-quarter decline of about 23,700 jobs. This signifies a 1% drop. The federal workforce has been reduced to approximately 2.29 millionreuters.com.
Legal rollback: A federal judge blocked mass layoffs at HHS. The judge deemed them “arbitrary and capricious.” This decision halted over 10,000 planned terminationsen.wikipedia.org+3thedailybeast.com+3apnews.com+3.
“The American people deserve a government that is lean. It should be efficient and focused on core priorities,” OPM Acting Director Charles Ezell said. He framed the downsizing as a fiscal win reuters.com+6federalnewsnetwork.com+6foxnews.com+6.
2. Agency-by-Agency Fallout
Health & Human Services: Targeted a 25% workforce reduction—about 20,000 jobs eliminated—affecting the CDC, FDA, NIH, and CMS apnews.com.
National Science Foundation: Paused or canceled 1,600 grants. It slashed fellowships by 75%. It also dismantled peer-review independence—a move scientists warn will cost U.S. innovation and “a generation of talent” theguardian.com.
National Park Service: Permanent staffing fell by 24%. There were only 4,500 seasonal hires, which is far short of the needed 7,700. This resulted in maintenance backlogs and delayed emergency responses staffingindustry.com+3sfgate.com+3govexec.com+3.
3. The Savings That Never Materialized
DOGE’s bold claims: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced $160 billion in savings. They achieved this via contract cancellations, leases, and workforce cuts en.wikipedia.org+5en.wikipedia.org+5cbsnews.com+5.
Reality check: Independent analysts argue that actual cost reductions are closer to $80 billion, and note caveats:
~$135 million lost from disruption.
Contract “savings” often overstated—e.g., a $655 million USAID contract cut was restated at just 35 cents reuters.com.
Budget context:
Federal outlays rose by over $200 billion in Trump’s first 100 days. This amount was more than what was spent in nine of the prior ten years.
Debt-service climbed too: $94 billion in interest payments in one month vs. $80 billion a year earlier reuters.com.
DOGE’s savings amount to just 2.6% of discretionary spending—effectively negligible overall visualcapitalist.com.
4. Impact on Taxpayers & Services
Despite layoffs:
No direct tax relief for average Americans.
Essential services have been impaired: reduced access for Medicaid/Medicare beneficiaries, eroded scientific research, delayed park maintenance, weakened emergency response.
Budget cuts amount to a drop in the bucket. Mandatory expenditures like Social Security, Medicare, defense, veterans’ benefits, and debt interest consume around two-thirds of the federal budget. sfgate.com+1wsj.com+1.
5. Public Opinion & Potential Fallout
Public sentiment: 55% of Americans believe cuts to federal employees and services will harm the economy; only 31% disagree ourpublicservice.org+1cbsnews.com+1.
Economist takeaway:“To cut federal spending significantly, focus on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Interest spending must also be addressed,” notes AEIs Nat Malkus cbsnews.com.
Even a 10% workforce cut yields only ~$25 billion per year—less than 1% of total federal outlays investopedia.com.
📊 Summary Table
Cutback Type
Scale of Reduction
Estimated Savings
Caveats / Impact
Federal layoffs
~275,000 announced; ~23k net cut
$25–80 B annually
Disruptive, costly; limited fiscal effect
Agency-specific job cuts
HHS (20k), NSF grants (1.6k), NPS (24%)
Not fully quantified
Services degraded: health, science, park management
DOGE-reported cuts
Claimed $160 B
$80 B real impact?
Misdocuments, redistribution to defense/veteran spending
Overall federal spending
Up $200 B first 100 days
–
Outlays still increasing due to fixed costs and one-off obligations
🧾 Conclusion
The Trump Administration’s aggressive federal cutbacks have certainly shrunk parts of government. Yet, they haven’t translated into noticeable savings for average taxpayers. Most reductions target lower-tier programs instead of trimming the core federal budget. Mandatory spending, including defense, healthcare, pensions, and debt interest, continues unchecked. Meanwhile, disruptions to critical services—public health, national parks, scientific research—have been significant.
Bottom line: The headline of a leaner government resonate politically, but the economic reality for taxpayers is murky—and bleak. Unless cuts touch the big-ticket mandatory spending items, true budget relief remains elusive.
Recent coverage on Trump cutbacks
THE BOTTOM LINE
If you’ve got less than $10,000 in the bank, here’s the truth. You’re not cashing in on any of this. The deals and decisions being made right now will fatten the pockets of the top money makers—not yours.
What you will see is the fallout:
Higher grocery bills
Rising medical costs
More expensive fuel
By year’s end, everything you need will cost more, while your paycheck buys less. The framework isn’t built for you to win—it’s built for you to keep paying. And that is the bottom line!
The recent rallies by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mark a defining moment in contemporary American politics. Across five rallies in three states, tens of thousands gathered. They made a resounding call for change. This signals widespread dissatisfaction with the current political and economic systems. The overwhelming attendance at these events reveals a deep-rooted movement. It is fueled by a demand for economic fairness. There is also a call for political integrity and grassroots-driven reform.
One of the key takeaways from these rallies is the rejection of Trumpism, oligarchy, and authoritarianism. The presence of thousands in North Las Vegas, Tempe, Greeley, Denver, and Tucson shows collective opposition to massive income inequality. Wealth inequality has left many working-class Americans behind. This movement directly responds to a political system. In this system, billionaires hold disproportionate power. They use their wealth to influence elections and dictate policy. The rallies were not simply campaign events; they were gatherings of individuals. They were determined to reclaim democracy from corporate interests. They also wanted to challenge political elites.
Moreover, the movement echoes historical struggles that have shaped the United States. Sanders draws parallels between this modern fight and past movements that have successfully challenged oppression. These include the abolitionist, labor, civil rights, and women’s rights movements. These historical precedents offer a blueprint for today’s progressive movement. They emphasize that real change arises when ordinary people organize. Real change occurs when they take action against systemic injustice.
A critical part of this movement is grassroots organization. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez stress the need to mobilize people in all 50 states through consistent engagement. Mobilizing thousands of people means not only attending rallies but also translating that enthusiasm into political action. Encouraging progressives to run for office at all levels is crucial. This includes positions from school boards to state legislatures. It is a core strategy to enact lasting change. Local elections, often overlooked in the national political discourse, hold immense power in shaping policies that affect daily life.
Additionally, the movement extends beyond electoral politics. It calls for strong communities where people support one another despite economic and social challenges. The emphasis on solidarity reflects the understanding that political change is inseparable from fostering a culture of mutual aid. It also involves building collective strength. The movement creates networks of engaged citizens. The goal is to counteract the feelings of loneliness that many experience in today’s economic landscape. It also addresses feelings of helplessness.
This movement does not overstate the urgency. Sanders highlights the significance of this moment not only for current generations but also for future ones. Climate change, economic disparity, and political corruption are existential issues that need immediate action. The message is clear: now is the time for mobilization, not despair. The fight for a fair and just society depends on ordinary people. They must be willing to challenge entrenched power structures. They must demand a system that works for all.
Arizona, Nevada, Colorado,
In conclusion, the rallies held across Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado exemplify the strength of a growing progressive movement in America. The record-breaking turnouts illustrate a profound discontent with the status quo and a wish for systemic change. By organizing, running for office, and building community solidarity, this movement can redefine the future of American democracy. The path ahead is not easy. History has shown that when people unite for justice, they can overcome even the most powerful obstacles.
A man named Walter Henshaw lived in a small town. This town was nestled between rolling hills. Walter was known for his insatiable curiosity, always pondering life’s mysteries. One evening, as he sat on his front porch watching the sunset, he wondered aloud,
“Is it possible to find two people in this world who agree on everything?”
The thought consumed him, and soon, Walter embarked on a journey around the world to find the answer. He packed his belongings, bid farewell to his friends and family, and set off on his quest.
Walter’s first stop was Paris, where he met a pair of artists who were painting by the Seine. They seemed in perfect harmony, laughing and finishing each other’s sentences. But when Walter asked them if they agreed on everything, they chuckled.
“Of course not,”
One replied.
“He thinks Monet is the greatest, but I prefer Van Gogh.”
Undeterred, Walter traveled to India, where he visited a monastery high in the Himalayas. There, he met two monks who had lived in silence for decades. Walter was sure he had found his answer, but when he posed his question, one monk smiled and said,
“I prefer tea; he prefers coffee.”
Walter traveled onward. He visited the bustling streets of New York City. Then he experienced the serene countryside of Japan. Finally, he explored the vast plains of Africa. He encountered lifelong friends. He met devoted couples. He even found identical-twins everywhere he went. Nonetheless, no two people ever claimed to agree on everything.
After years of traveling, Walter found himself in a small village in South America. He met an elderly couple who had been together for over seventy years. Patiently, they listened as Walter told them about his journey.
The older man chuckled and said,
“Young man, love is not about agreeing on everything. It’s about embracing differences and finding common ground.”
Walter sat in silence, absorbing the wisdom. He realized then that his journey had taught him more than he ever imagined. The beauty of human connection lies not in absolute agreement but in understanding, compromise, and the joy of diversity.
It also reminded him of one chap he had met in the United States who said to him –––
“Show me any two people who agree on everything, sir, and I will show you a pair of liars!”
Returning home, Walter shared his experiences with his friends and family. He had not found two people who agreed on everything. Still, he discovered something even more valuable. He gained an appreciation for the uniqueness that made each person unique.
Once a seeker of perfect agreement, Walter Henshaw sought harmony. He became a storyteller. He wove tales of his adventures and the lessons he had learned. He realized that life wasn’t about finding someone who thinks as you do. Instead, it is about learning to cherish the differences. These differences make life enjoyable and meaningful.
In the end, Walter’s journey had been about connection, not conformity. He found peace knowing that the world was more prosperous because of its endless variety.
The fall of 2024 found a vibrant small community town hall filled with locals from every walk of life. The walls became lined with a diverse array of familiar faces of the neighborhood—retired teachers, young activists, military veterans, and longtime friends who had lived through decades of change, some of it hard-won, others bittersweet. On the stage, with a sign reading “Let’s Talk About Greatness,” stood a panel, each holding their idea of what that greatness looked like.
Jared, a man in his late sixties with a MAGA hat perched atop his head, leaned forward as he spoke, –––
“I want my kids and grandkids to grow up in a country that feels strong, proud, and united—like it was back then. We all knew our neighbors. Families were close-knit. There was a sense of American unity.”
Dolores, a retired history teacher, nodded beside him. But as the crowd listened, some exchanged looks. –––
“So, Jared, I get what you’re saying,” a young local journalist interrupted Lena. But when we say ‘back then,’ do we mean the same thing?”
Jared paused, looking thoughtful, as Dolores took the microphone. –––
“We tend to remember the good and forget the rest,” she said gently. I remember growing up in the fifties and sixties. It was stable and ideal for some of us, but not everyone. This ‘great’ past we want to go back to meant certain people couldn’t vote. Others had to hide who they loved. And women—our dreams were seen as distractions to a family.”
There was a hush as Dolores’s words hung in the air.
“I don’t think Jared meant that,”
––– came a soft voice from the audience. It was Naomi, a single mother and community organizer.
“But when we say we want to ‘Make America Great Again,’ we have to ask—for whom? The history we’re returning to was not the same experience for everyone.”
The community members exchanged glances. Jared turned back to the crowd. –––
“I respect what you’re saying, Naomi,”
he replied, genuinely thoughtfully. –––
“When I say ‘greatness,’ I’m not talking about racism or inequality. I’m talking about hard work, pride, patriotism—things that feel like they’re slipping away.”
Naomi nodded understanding, fostering a sense of mutual respect and value for each other’s perspectives, highlighting the importance of open and respectful dialogue in the community.
“But the word again implies that we want to go backward,”
––– Lena pointed out.
“And, for me, that’s concerning. I love this country and respect what’s gone into making it better. I mean, we have interracial marriage, legal protections for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights for everyone.”
––– Lena paused, looking at Jared.
“To me, that’s American greatness—now.”
As the meeting unfolded, the debate deepened. Various members shared stories of progress and hardships. Kayla, a small business owner, spoke about her pride in balancing work and motherhood.
“When I hear traditional values, I think of something different than my grandmother might have,”
––– she said.
“My values include family, hard work, women’s rights, and equal opportunities.”
Another voice said,
“Look, I served in the military, and I believe in protecting this country,”
––– said Tom, a retired Marine and a man with a thick gray beard.
“I fought for an America that moves forward and doesn’t leave anyone behind. ‘Greatness’ is complex—strong enough to protect everyone’s rights.”
The meeting wrapped up with the group realizing that “greatness” was many things, each person’s version holding personal meaning. Dolores took the microphone one last time:
“Maybe we can remember this—our vision of a truly great America embraces both the good of the past and the advancements we’ve made. To build greatness, we don’t go backward. We keep moving and evolving, ensuring that each generation has the opportunity to contribute to a better America, instilling a sense of hope and optimism in the audience for the future.”
The room echoed with nods of agreement, and as the townspeople filed out, they carried forward a renewed understanding: that the road to greatness was not paved with nostalgia alone but with a willingness to grow beyond it.
The term “Make America Great Again” has a different meaning, and it stands on the grounds that to make America Great Again, there has to be the revoking of rights that have been attained by groups over the last fifty years. Those groups include blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, Asians, the LGBTQI+ Community, and others. Because of that angle, this space will discuss the topic in the November 1st, 2024 posting.
Understanding the range of meanings attributed to “Make America Great Again” offers insight into the complexities of contemporary American identity and the societal debate over what “greatness” truly entails in an evolving multicultural landscape.
If you wake up one morning and it gets decided that the far right movement has successfully won up and down the ballot the offices that will allow them control of the Senate, House, and Presidency, what happens on January 21st when the President takes office? The other’s take will have taken office on January 3rd, 2025.
If a far-right, authoritarian shift happened, imagine daily life feeling tense and disorienting. Freedom of speech and privacy might tighten, and communities could fracture over polarized beliefs.
Social media would likely be more censored, making it hard to know what’s happening.
For those in creative fields, such as storytelling and journalism, the potential for self-censorship is a real concern. Themes might be subtly altered, as work reflecting dissent or critique could become risky.
Public spaces and services would not be immune to the influence of a far-right, authoritarian shift. Schools, healthcare, and public safety could all be shaped by this new ideology, affecting the way history is taught, access to healthcare, and what behavior is punished or protected.
Law enforcement could face a mix of skepticism and loyalty shifts as priorities change, especially in places that once held them in high esteem.
Ultimately, a far-right, authoritarian shift could lead to a personal life that feels guarded. People might find themselves either staying under the radar or trying to navigate systems to protect themselves and their values.
It’s crucial to consider the potential influence of far-right extremism when we vote. Hopefully, there are still enough clear-minded individuals in America who can help prevent such a shift.
Beginning in 1943, the War Department published a series of pamphlets for U.S. Army personnel in the European theater of World War II. Titled Army Talks, the series was designed “to help [the personnel] become better-informed men and women and therefore better soldiers.”
On March 24, 1945, the topic for the week was “FASCISM!”
“You are away from home, separated from your families, no longer at a civilian job or at school and many of you are risking your very lives,” the pamphlet explained, “because of a thing called fascism.” But, the publication asked, what is fascism? “Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze,” it said, “nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important for our future and that of the world that as many of us as possible understand the causes and practices of fascism, in order to combat it.”
Fascism, the U.S. government document explained, –––
“is government by the few and for the few. The objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the state.” “The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.”
“The basic principles of democracy stand in the way of their desires; hence—democracy must go! Anyone who is not a member of their inner gang has to do what he’s told. They permit no civil liberties, no equality before the law.” “Fascism treats women as mere breeders. ‘Children, kitchen, and the church,’ was the Nazi slogan for women,” ––– the pamphlet said.
Fascists “make their own rules and change them when they choose…. They maintain themselves in power by use of force combined with propaganda based on primitive ideas of ‘blood’ and ‘race,’ by skillful manipulation of fear and hate, and by false promise of security. The propaganda glorifies war and insists it is smart and ‘realistic’ to be pitiless and violent.”
Fascists understood that “the fundamental principle of democracy—faith in the common sense of the common people—was the direct opposite of the fascist principle of rule by the elite few,” it explained, “[s]o they fought democracy…. They played political, religious, social, and economic groups against each other and seized power while these groups struggled.”
Americans should not be fooled into thinking that fascism could not come to America, the pamphlet warned; after all, “[w]e once laughed Hitler off as a harmless little clown with a funny mustache.” And indeed, the U.S. had experienced “sorry instances of mob sadism, lynchings, vigilantism, terror, and suppression of civil liberties. We have had our hooded gangs, Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religious bigots. All of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic methods and doctrines which…can be properly identified as ‘fascist.’”
The War Department thought it was important for Americans to understand the tactics fascists would use to take power in the United States. They would try to gain power “under the guise of ‘super-patriotism’ and ‘super-Americanism.’” And they would use three techniques:
First, they would pit religious, racial, and economic groups against one another to break down national unity. Part of that effort to divide and conquer would be a “well-planned ‘hate campaign’ against minority races, religions, and other groups.”
Second, they would deny any need for international cooperation, because that would fly in the face of their insistence that their supporters were better than everyone else. “In place of international cooperation, the fascists seek to substitute a perverted sort of ultra-nationalism which tells their people that they are the only people in the world who count. With this goes hatred and suspicion toward the people of all other nations.”
Third, fascists would insist that “the world has but two choices—either fascism or communism, and they label as ‘communists’ everyone who refuses to support them.”
It is “vitally important” to learn to spot native fascists, the government said, “even though they adopt names and slogans with popular appeal, drape themselves with the American flag, and attempt to carry out their program in the name of the democracy they are trying to destroy.”
The only way to stop the rise of fascism in the United States, the document said, “is by making our democracy work and by actively cooperating to preserve world peace and security.” In the midst of the insecurity of the modern world, the hatred at the root of fascism “fulfills a triple mission.” By dividing people, it weakens democracy. “By getting men to hate rather than to think,” it prevents them “from seeking the real cause and a democratic solution to the problem.” By falsely promising prosperity, it lures people to embrace its security.
“Fascism thrives on indifference and ignorance,” it warned. Freedom requires “being alert and on guard against the infringement not only of our own freedom but the freedom of every American. If we permit discrimination, prejudice, or hate to rob anyone of his democratic rights, our own freedom and all democracy is threatened.”
During the run-up to any election, families play a pivotal role in supporting and understanding one another. This period, filled with political debates, media coverage, and public discourse, can stir emotions and create an intensely charged atmosphere. The emotional toll of election season can affect even the most resilient individuals, making the support of one’s family crucial and invaluable. Families are the core unit, providing a comforting and reassuring presence. It is essential that the role model (be it a father, older sibling, uncle, or aunt,) when possible, show support, care, and empathy. Doing so should be cultivated, and providing emotional backing and physical presence can help members navigate the turmoil of an upcoming election.
Election seasons amplify the daily stressors people face. Whether it is work pressure, financial struggles, or personal challenges, these become compounded by the uncertainty of political outcomes. Each family member may carry their political convictions, hopes, and anxieties, and these can sometimes clash with those of others. This emotional burden often deepens as people speculate about the possible outcomes—who they hope will win, who they fear will lose, and how the results will shape their future. The thought of losing an election can become so overwhelming that it leads to despair, disappointment, or even anger. For some, this emotional strain can develop into mental health issues, making it vital for families to remain vigilant about one another’s well-being during this time and to seek professional help if needed.
In the most extreme cases, the stress associated with an election’s outcome can drive individuals to become a threat to themselves or others. This is especially true when political messaging often stokes fear, resentment, and division. Individuals who place too much faith in a particular candidate or political party may feel personally attacked when that candidate loses. The sense of loss may not just be political; it can be internalized as a personal failure, leaving individuals feeling disillusioned or even desperate. Families must observe signs of distress, such as prolonged periods of sadness or withdrawal, recognize potential harmful behavior, like verbal or physical aggression, and intervene when necessary. It is crucial to remain proactive, offering emotional support and, if needed, involving professionals or authorities to prevent escalation.
The role of misinformation and campaigns lies in discussing election-induced emotional volatility. Many political campaigns thrive on pushing false narratives, spreading misleading information to sway voters. Misinformation, which includes false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately to deceive, can reinforce individuals’ beliefs to dangerous levels. The spread of misinformation fuels emotional intensity and gives people a sense of justification for actions that, under normal circumstances, would seem unreasonable or extreme. When individuals have been repeatedly exposed to incorrect information, their convictions can become so ingrained that they believe their behavior—whether confrontation, violence, or drastic action—is justified.
In such situations, the line between reason and irrationality blurs. What may begin as passionate support for a candidate can spiral into dangerous behavior if an individual believes they are defending a “truth” that is, in fact, built on lies. This is why it is imperative for families to communicate openly about politics, encouraging fact-checking and critical thinking. Recognizing when a loved one’s emotional engagement has become unhealthy is not just crucial, but empowering. In these moments, reporting potentially dangerous behavior to the appropriate authorities is not an act of betrayal but one of care and protection for the individual and others around them, reinforcing the sense of responsibility and control within the family.
As elections approach, the pressure intensifies, with it, the emotional strain on families. However, families can also be a force for positive change, weathering the storm of political tension together by staying connected, offering support, and observing each other’s mental health. It is essential to create a space where emotions can be expressed freely but responsibly and where misinformation is challenged rather than accepted at face value. In doing so, families not only protect one another but also contribute to a more balanced and less volatile society during the electoral process, fostering a sense of hope and optimism for a brighter future.
Your participation in the 2024 election is set to be a pivotal moment in American politics. With control of the presidency and Senate hanging in the balance, a handful of key Senate races across the nation will determine which party holds the majority, shaping the country’s legislative future for years to come. Your vote and support are critical at this crucial time.
Currently, Democrats hold a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate, which includes three Independents who caucus with us. With 34 Senate seats up for grabs in November, Republicans are determined to flip the chamber. One notable challenge is in West Virginia, where Senator Joe Manchin’s retirement is likely to result in a Republican win. The stakes are high, and the outcome will have lasting consequences on the direction of national policy.
Several factors will contribute to the intense battle for Senate control:
National political climate: The overall political environment, particularly the presidential race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, will heavily influence down-ballot Senate races.
State demographics and voting patterns: States like Montana, where Trump won decisively in 2020, present tough challenges for Democratic incumbents.
Candidate quality and campaigns: The strength of individual candidates, their campaigns, and their ability to connect with voters will be pivotal, with fundraising, messaging, and strategy all influencing the results.
Key issues: Voters are likely to prioritize topics like inflation, immigration, abortion, and healthcare, with candidates attempting to address these concerns.
Senate Races to Watch
At least seven Democratic-held seats are highly competitive this fall, particularly in battleground states. Montana, for example, is a race to watch closely. Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) is trailing Republican challenger Tim Sheehy. In a state that Donald Trump won by a significant margin in 2020, Tester faces an uphill battle. The polling shows similar challenges for Democratic candidates in other key races, such as Texas and Florida.
In Texas, Trump is ahead of Harris by seven points, while Republican Senator Ted Cruz leads his challenger Colin Allred by just four points. In Florida, Trump holds a 13-point lead over Harris, and Senator Rick Scott leads Democratic challenger Debbie Mucarsel-Powell by nine points.
An independent candidate, Dan Osborn, is running against Republican incumbent Deb Fischer in Nebraska. Should Osborn win and decline to caucus with either party, it could further complicate the Senate’s balance of power. However, past independent bids in similar states have failed to unseat Republican incumbents.
The Arizona Senate Race
The Arizona Senate race is particularly significant, as it could tip the balance of power in the Senate. Incumbent Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s retirement has opened the door for a competitive contest between Democrat Ruben Gallego and Republican Kari Lake.
Ruben Gallego, a five-term Democratic congressman and Iraq War veteran, emphasizes his pragmatic leadership and strong support for LGBTQ rights. His record includes co-sponsoring the Equality Act and advocating for transgender rights, veterans, and LGBTQ individuals. Polls show Gallego leading Lake by an average of 50% to 42%, with strong support among likely voters.
Kari Lake, a former newscaster and staunch ally of Donald Trump, has built her campaign around issues like inflation and immigration. However, her embrace of election denialism and divisive rhetoric has limited her appeal among moderate Republicans and independents. Despite her efforts, Lake trails in most polls, and Arizona’s shifting demographics favor Gallego’s chances.
LGBTQ Rights in Arizona
The Arizona race has taken on additional significance for LGBTQ rights. Gallego’s commitment to equality and his consistent voting record, including support for the Respect for Marriage Act, stands in stark contrast to Lake’s history of inflammatory remarks and policies hostile to the LGBTQ community. Lake has made derogatory comments about LGBTQ issues and aligned herself with far-right figures, which has raised concerns among civil rights advocates.
Join the Fight for Equality in 2024
This election will shape the future of American politics, and Arizona could play a key role in determining the balance of power in the Senate. We need you to join us in this fight for equality. Help us get out the vote this Saturday as we canvass neighborhoods with Equality Arizona and Equality Utah. Every Arizona vote matters, and together, we can make a difference!
As the next election looms, it’s vital to pause and consider the potential fallout of inaction. This isn’t about personal feelings towards candidates; it’s about the future course of the United States. A conservative takeover, especially by the far-right factions of the Republican party, presents a grave threat to the core freedoms and values we’ve steadfastly defended for decades. The consequences of inaction could be dire.
If we allow figures like Trump and those who share his extreme ideologies to ascend to power in local, state, and federal offices, we risk a regression of fundamental rights. Women’s rights to make decisions about their bodies, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, environmental protections, and access to fair education are all in jeopardy. These rights were hard-fought and could be easily dismissed if we do not act now.
Think about the simple freedoms we take for granted:
the freedom to access accurate information
the freedom to speak up when something is wrong without fear of government retaliation
the freedom to gather with others and protest
In an era where misinformation, conspiracy theories, and autocratic tendencies dominate the discourse, these fundamental liberties hang in the balance.
If you’re reading this, you already grasp the importance of participation. But now, we must move beyond just casting our own votes. We must empower everyone we know—family, friends, colleagues—to vote and, more importantly, vote for candidates who will uphold democracy. Your vote is not just a choice but a powerful tool for shaping the future.
The threat is not about a single issue but about ensuring that the United States remains a nation that upholds all rights, including freedoms, equality, and justice for all.
We have seen glimpses of what a conservative grip on power looks like in recent years—attempts to undermine the electoral process, rollbacks of protections for minority communities, and the emboldening of hate groups. Imagine what that would look like unchecked.
Voting Blue in the next election is not just a partisan decision—it is a vote to preserve the essence of what makes America a place where freedom still means something.
Let us not take that for granted. Let us make sure our voices get heard and our values protected.
Five years ago, on September 15, 2019, after about a six-week hiatus during the summer, I wrote a Facebook post that started:
“Many thanks to all of you who have reached out to see if I’m okay. I am, indeed (aside from having been on the losing end of an encounter with a yellow jacket this afternoon!). I’ve been moving, setting up house, and finishing the new book. Am back and ready to write, but now everything seems like such a dumpster fire it’s very hard to know where to start. So how about a general overview of how things at the White House look to me, today….”
I wrote a review of Trump’s apparent mental decline amidst his faltering presidency, stonewalling of investigations of potential criminal activity by him or his associates, stacking of the courts, and attempting to use the power of the government to help his 2020 reelection.
Then I noted that the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), had written a letter to the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, on Friday, September 13, telling Maguire he knew that a whistleblower had filed a complaint with the inspector general of the intelligence community, who had deemed the complaint “credible” and “urgent.” This meant that the complaint was supposed to be sent on to the House Intelligence Committee. But, rather than sending it to the House as the law required, Maguire had withheld it. Schiff’s letter told Maguire that he’d better hand it over. Schiff speculated that Maguire was covering up evidence of crimes by the president or his closest advisors.
And I added: “None of this would fly in America if the Senate, controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, were not aiding and abetting him.”
“This is the story of a dictator on the rise,” I wrote, “taking control of formerly independent branches of government, and using the power of his office to amass power.”
Readers swamped me with questions. So I wrote another post answering them and trying to explain the news, which began breaking at a breathtaking pace.
And so these Letters from an American were born.
In the five years since then, the details of the Ukraine scandal—the secret behind the whistleblower complaint in Schiff’s letter—revealed that then-president Trump was running his own private foreign policy to strong-arm Ukraine into helping his reelection campaign. That effort brought to light more of the story of Russian support for Trump’s 2016 campaign, which until Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine seemed to be in exchange for lifting sanctions the Obama administration imposed against Russia after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
The February 2022 invasion brought renewed attention to the Mariupol Plan, confirmed by Trump’s 2016 campaign advisor Paul Manafort, that Russia expected a Trump administration to permit Russian president Vladimir Putin to take over eastern Ukraine.
The Ukraine scandal of 2019 led to Trump’s first impeachment trial for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, then his acquittal on those charges and his subsequent purge of career government officials, whom he replaced with Trump loyalists.
Then, on February 7, just two days after Senate Republicans acquitted him, Trump picked up the phone and called veteran journalist Bob Woodward to tell him there was a deadly new virus spreading around the world. It was airborne, he explained, and was five times “more deadly than even your strenuous flus.” “This is deadly stuff,” he said. He would not share that information with other Americans, though, continuing to play down the virus in hopes of protecting the economy.
More than a million of us did not live through the ensuing pandemic.
We have, though, lived through the attempts of the former president to rig the 2020 election, the determination of American voters to make their voices heard, the Black Lives Matter protests after the murder of George Floyd, the election of Democrat Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, and the subsequent refusal of Trump and his loyalists to accept Biden’s win.
And we have lived through the unthinkable: an attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob determined to overrule the results of an election and install their own candidate in the White House. For the first time in our history, the peaceful transfer of power was broken. Republican senators saved Trump again in his second impeachment trial, and rather than disappearing after the inauguration of President Biden, Trump doubled down on the Big Lie that he had been the true winner of the 2020 presidential election.
We have seen the attempts of Biden and the Democratic-controlled Congress to move America past this dark moment by making coronavirus vaccines widely available and passing landmark legislation to rebuild the economy. The American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act spurred the economy to become the strongest in the world, proving that the tested policy of investing in ordinary Americans worked far better than post-1980 neoliberalism ever did. After Republicans took control of the House in 2023, we saw them paralyze Congress with infighting that led them, for the first time in history, to throw out their own speaker, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).
We have watched as the Supreme Court, stacked by Trump with religious extremists, has worked to undermine the proven system in place before 1981. It took away the doctrine that required courts to defer to government agencies’ reasonable regulations and opened the way for big business to challenge those regulations before right-wing judges. It ended affirmative action in colleges and universities, and it overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the constitutional right to abortion.
And then we watched the Supreme Court hand down the stunning decision of July 1, 2024, that overturned the fundamental principle of the United States of America that no one is above the law. In Donald J. Trump v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that a president could not be prosecuted for crimes committed as part of his official duties.
We saw the reactionary authoritarianism of the former president’s supporters grow stronger. In Republican-dominated states across the country, legislatures passed laws to suppress Democratic voting and to put the counting of votes into partisan hands. Trump solidified control over the Republican Party and tightened his ties to far-right authoritarians and white supremacists. Republicans nominated him to be their presidential candidate in 2024 to advance policies outlined in Project 2025 that would concentrate power in the president and impose religious nationalism on the country. Trump chose as his running mate religious extremist Ohio senator J.D. Vance, putting in line for the presidency a man whose entire career in elected office consisted of the eighteen months he had served in the Senate.
In that first letter five years ago, I wrote: “So what do those of us who love American democracy do? Make noise. Take up oxygen…. Defend what is great about this nation: its people, and their willingness to innovate, work, and protect each other. Making America great has never been about hatred or destruction or the aggregation of wealth at the very top; it has always been about building good lives for everyone on the principle of self-determination. While we have never been perfect, our democracy is a far better option than the autocratic oligarchy Trump is imposing on us.”
And we have made noise, and we have taken up oxygen. All across the country, people have stepped up to defend our democracy from those who are open about their plans to destroy it and install a dictator. Democrats and Republicans as well as people previously unaligned, we have reiterated why democracy matters, and in this election where the issue is not policy differences but the very survival of our democracy, we are working to elect Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz.
If you are tired from the last five years, you have earned the right to be.
And yet, you are still here, reading.
I write these letters because I love America. I am staunchly committed to the principle of human self-determination for people of all races, genders, abilities, and ethnicities, and I believe that American democracy could be the form of government that comes closest to bringing that principle to reality. And I know that achieving that equality depends on a government shaped by fact-based debate rather than by extremist ideology and false narratives.
And so I write.
But I have come to understand that I am simply the translator for the sentiments shared by millions of people who are finding each other and giving voice to the principles of democracy. Your steadfast interest, curiosity, critical thinking, and especially your kindness—to me and to one another—illustrate that we have not only the power, but also the passion, to reinvent our nation.
To those who read these letters, send tips, proofread, criticize, comment, argue, worry, cheer, award medals (!), and support me and one another: I thank you for bringing me along on this wild, unexpected, exhausting, and exhilarating journey.
Richardson has authored seven books on history and politics. In 2019, Richardson started publishing Letters from an American, a nightly newsletter that chronicles current events in the larger context of American history.[3] The newsletter accrued over one million subscribers, making her, as of December 2020, the most successful individual author of a paid publication on Substack.[4 (see more click here)
The GOP, particularly their latest pick as Trump’s potential successor, keeps asking why Kamala Harris hasn’t accomplished everything she claims she’ll do if elected.
As Vice President, Harris’s role isn’t to set policy but to support the President’s mission. Over the past four years, that mission has centered on recovering from Trump’s administration’s chaos. Trump’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic blindsided the nation, but despite these challenges, the Biden-Harris administration has worked tirelessly to put Americans back to work and rebuild neglected institutions.
It’s important to understand that any proposed initiatives by the President or Vice President require funding and legislation, which starts in the GOP-controlled House. Bipartisan cooperation is crucial, but the current House struggles to agree on leadership, let alone budgeting and legislation. The GOP’s track record in these areas is questionable at best. Blaming someone and then withholding their ability is classic GOP.
It is why many of Harris’s proposed measures are likely to gain traction during the first two years of her potential administration when a Democratic majority in both the Senate and House is more likely.
If critics want to question what Harris should have already accomplished, they should first focus on sponsoring and passing the necessary legislation. Only then can Harris take the steps needed to fulfill her promises.
In a time of intense political enthusiasm, the nation’s largest city braced for the Democratic National Convention. The convention was monumental, drawing over 200,000 people, including fervent supporters, passionate protestors, and those harboring darker intentions. The city’s population swelled, and the number of people and calls for service pushed authorities’ abilities, as law enforcement officers from seven neighboring states were called to ensure the safety of all in attendance.
The Convention Management needed two massive arenas to accommodate the influx of attendees, all eager to witness the nomination of their party’s candidate. Security was tight, with officers meticulously screening everyone entering the venues. Despite the thorough checks, the atmosphere was tense; no one knew what might happen as the evening unfolded.
As the convention began, volunteers handed out bracelets and necklaces designed to light up in vibrant shades of blue and pink. These accessories, when activated, blinked with a strobe-like effect, adding to the electric atmosphere. However, as the lights flashed rapidly, the joy turned into panic. For some, the blinking lights triggered seizures, turning the arena into a scene of chaos as over five hundred attendees began convulsing.
The sudden medical emergency overwhelmed the official responders. But amid the turmoil, a few quick-thinking attendees with first responder training stepped in, helping to manage the situation. They guided others in assisting the stricken, and together, they stabilized the crisis without needing additional outside help.
Realizing the cause of the seizures, the speaker at the podium urged the crowd to switch their bracelets and necklaces to a steady glow or to turn them off altogether. As the crowd complied, the flashing lights faded, and calm returned to the arena.
But a new and more sinister threat emerged just as the situation seemed to be under control. An embittered and desperate opposing candidate had managed to slip into the venue through a back door. Claiming he had a scheduled meeting with his Democratic opponent, he bypassed security and found his way to a room intended for the candidate.
Unbeknownst to him, the candidate wasn’t there that evening. Instead, a former First Lady entered the room, unaware of the intruder’s presence. As she closed the door behind her, the man, believing he was facing his political rival, prepared to attack. But before he could strike, the former First Lady, trained in Krav Maga, swiftly neutralized him. In a matter of seconds, the would-be attacker was subdued, left crying, and defeated on the floor.
He didn’t know the incident was captured on a security camera, complete with audio. The footage revealed his violent intentions, his use of racist slurs, and his plan to kill who he thought was his opponent. The video also showed the failure of both his and her security teams to prevent the breach, highlighting the danger she faced.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, the authorities neither arrested nor questioned the intruder. Instead, the former First Lady, a Black woman, was detained and interrogated as if she were the aggressor. It wasn’t until the security footage was reviewed that the truth was undeniable: she had acted in self-defense against a deliberate attack.
A week later, authorities showed the video to the public. The opposing campaign scrambled to make excuses, suggesting that the former First Lady should have chosen a different dressing room and their candidate had every right to be where he was. But the damage was done. The public, especially the supporters of the former First Lady and her candidate, were galvanized. They were more determined than ever to prevent such evil from reaching the Oval Office.
Ultimately, what began as a night of political celebration became a defining moment in the campaign. One woman’s bravery, coupled with the quick thinking of ordinary citizens, may have saved her life and the nation’s future.
Glendale, AZ — On a sweltering Friday afternoon, August 9, 2024, Glendale, Arizona, became the latest stop on Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s Western campaign trail. The rally was not just a show of support for the Democratic ticket but a testament to the power of unity and bipartisan cooperation in an era often marked by division.
Attendance estimated between 18,000 to 20,000 indoors and 5,000 or more waiting outside for an opportunity to enter if a space became available.
The event attracted a diverse crowd of enthusiastic supporters, united by a shared belief in the Harris-Walz vision for America’s future. Many attendees expressed their excitement about the campaign’s message of collaboration across party lines, a refreshing contrast to the polarized political climate of recent years.
A Message of Unity and Collaboration
Vice President Harris, who has been a trailblazer throughout her career, took the stage with her characteristic poise and determination. She addressed the crowd with a message focused on building bridges, not walls. “We are stronger together,” Harris proclaimed. “This campaign is about bringing people from all walks of life together to solve the real problems facing our nation. We must move beyond the divisiveness that has plagued our politics and work towards solutions that benefit every American, regardless of party affiliation.”
Governor Walz echoed Harris’s sentiments, emphasizing the importance of working with Republicans to achieve meaningful progress. “We cannot afford to be bogged down by the politics of the past,” Walz said. “We need to find common ground, and that means reaching out to those who may not always agree with us but who share our love for this country.”
Bi-Partisan Cooperation as a Cornerstone ‘We Love Our Country!’
Throughout the rally, the speakers underscored their commitment to bipartisan cooperation, highlighting their belief that real change can only come through collaboration. The Harris-Walz campaign has made a concerted effort to reach out to moderate Republicans and independents, recognizing that achieving lasting change requires the support of a broad coalition.
One of the most poignant moments of the rally came when Harris and Walz addressed the need for bipartisan efforts to protect democracy. “Our democracy is fragile,” Harris warned. “It requires constant care and attention. We must stand united against those who seek to undermine it, and that means working with anyone willing to uphold our democratic values.”
Walz, who has been known for his pragmatic approach to governance in Minnesota, shared success stories from his time working across the aisle to pass legislation that benefited all Minnesotans. He spoke of the importance of setting aside political differences to address critical issues such as healthcare, education, and economic inequality.
A Rally Fueled by Hope
The atmosphere at the Glendale rally was one of hope and determination. Supporters waved signs reading “Unity for All” and “Country Over Party,” capturing the essence of the Harris-Walz message. The crowd, a blend of ages, races, and backgrounds, served as a microcosm of the diverse coalition the campaign hopes to build.
Attendees were energized by the event, many expressing optimism about the possibility of a new era of cooperation in Washington. “It’s time for our leaders to stop fighting and start working together,” said Maria Lopez, a Glendale resident who attended the rally with her family. “Kamala and Tim understand that we can’t solve our problems alone—we need everyone at the table.”
As the rally concluded, Harris and Walz left the stage to a chorus of cheers, the sense of unity palpable among the crowd. Their message was clear: the future of America depends on our ability to come together, transcend divisions, and work toward a common goal. The rally in Glendale was not just a campaign event but a call to action—a call for all Americans to embrace the spirit of cooperation and move forward as one nation.
Conclusion ~ Together We Can!
In an election cycle often marked by partisan rancor, the Harris-Walz rally in Glendale was a refreshing reminder of what is possible when leaders prioritize collaboration over conflict. As the campaign continues its journey through the West, the message of unity and bipartisan cooperation remains at the heart of their vision for America’s future. The rally in Glendale was a powerful demonstration of that commitment, offering a hopeful glimpse of what the future could hold.
In the heart of Georgia, the political landscape was shifting beneath the surface, unseen by most but sensed by many. The Georgia State Election Board, a government body entrusted with overseeing the state’s election rules, had recently become a focal point of national attention. Former President Donald Trump had praised the board in an unusual move, commending three members: Janice Johnston, Rick Jeffares, and Janelle King. “Pitbulls fighting for honesty, transparency, and victory,” he had called them. But what exactly were they fighting for?
Max Flugrath, director of communications for Fair Fight Action, a keen political observer, had meticulously followed these developments. He noted the oddity of Trump’s involvement in such detailed matters. Typically, Trump preferred grand gestures and sweeping statements rather than delving into the minutiae of election certification rules. Yet here he was, thanking these newly appointed board members for their efforts to change Georgia’s certification rules.
The backdrop to this intrigue was a rapidly approaching election, less than 100 days away. The Trump-aligned members of the Georgia State Election Board had convened a meeting that Flugrath noted was unlawfully noticed and carried out. In this meeting, they advanced changes to the state’s election certification process, changes that could potentially undermine the democratic processes in Georgia. These changes could lead to delays in election results, create uncertainty, and allow for manipulation of the election outcome, a cause for concern for all citizens.
A lawsuit quickly followed, challenging the legality and transparency of the board’s actions. The controversy forced the board to hold another vote on some of the proposed election rule changes, scheduled for Tuesday, August 6. The proposed changes were alarming to many. One such rule would empower local election officials to slow down or refuse to certify the 2024 election results. With election deniers in local election positions, the implications were chilling.
Flugrath’s analysis painted a stark picture. The new rules, if passed, could be used to sow doubt in the election results, creating delays and uncertainty. The behavior you read about is not just a Georgia issue; similar behavior patterns were emerging in other states. Across the country, efforts were underway to change election rules, often under the guise of ensuring honesty and transparency. It’s vital for Americans to remain vigilant and demand transparency in these processes, as they have the potential to undermine the very foundation of democratic elections.
In Texas, a similar narrative was unfolding. The state’s election board, encouraged by Georgia’s actions, began proposing changes to the certification process. In Florida, [newly appointed election officials, who were praised by Trump for their dedication and were seen as his allies], were pushing for rules that would grant them unprecedented power over election outcomes. Even in Pennsylvania, whispers of changes to election certification rules were becoming louder.
As the shadows of democracy stretched across the nation, citizens found themselves in a united battle for the integrity of their elections. Flugrath’s warnings resonated, echoing the sentiments of those who valued transparency and fairness. The fight was about the upcoming election and preserving the principles that had long underpinned the democratic process. It’s a fight that unites us all, regardless of our political affiliations.
The day the vote arrived in Georgia. Protesters gathered outside the election board’s meeting, voicing dissent. Inside, the tension was palpable. The board members, conscious of the national scrutiny, deliberated their decision. The future of Georgia’s election rules hung in the balance, a microcosm of the broader struggle across the United States.
As the sun set, the board announced its decision. The proposed changes got narrowly voted down, a victory for those advocating transparency and fairness. But the battle was far from over. The events in Georgia had set a precedent, a reminder of the fragility of democracy and the constant vigilance required to protect it.
Flugrath watched the aftermath with cautious optimism. The shadows of inequity are held at bay for now, but the fight for the soul of American democracy continued. The story unfolded in real-time, with the stakes higher than ever.
This story is about a news report that could be featured in any newspaper or news program in the United States. It is taken from actual events currently taking place. Whether or not this is the exact outcome relies upon the people of Georgia. The news report may be the opposite of what you just read. The board voted to instate these rules and overthrow the state election to favor any person of their choice.
Two Russian dissidents released in a prisoner swap on Thursday said they refused to sign a petition for mercy to be sent to Russian President Vladimir Putin as requested by prison officials.
During a news conference in Germany, Vladimir Kara-Murza and Ilya Yashin said they did not admit guilt or give Russian officials their consent to be removed, and vowed to return home one day.
Mr Kara-Murza said the deal had saved “16 human lives” and that he had been convinced he would die in prison.
He added that many Russians were “opposed to Putin’s war in Ukraine”.
We require to listen to those who on were brought home. The hell they describe is the future Donald Trump and the GOP dream of for the U.S.A.
The day had been incredibly long, the weight of it pressing down on President Thompson. Meetings had stacked back to back, leaving him barely a moment to breathe. As he finally sat down at his desk, his phone rang. Picking up the extension, he spoke with a firm, authoritative tone,
“Yes, Bill, what do we have?”
Bill, the President’s unwavering right hand, had been the first assistant to hold the position since day one. He always attended a meeting, a news conference, or an appearance.
He was always there, ready to serve. Bill replied,
“Mr. President, a gaggle of news reporters is waiting outside the news pit. They want to know about your decision.”
President Thompson sighed, a deep weariness in his voice.
“My decision? Which is that, the dog, the house, the dinner menu, my son, and what time is it?”
Bill returned with patience and clarity,
“Sir, they want to know whether or not you’ve decided to remain in the presidential re-election campaign.”
The President leaned back in his chair, staring at the ceiling as the enormity of the situation weighed on him. He had spent countless hours deliberating, balancing the nation’s needs with his ambitions. The country was at a crossroads, facing unprecedented challenges that required steadfast leadership. His heart was torn between his love for the nation and his aspirations.
“Bill,”
He said softly,
“I’ve given this much thought. The country is in a fragile state, and it needs unity and stability. It’s time to put the nation’s needs before my aspirations.“
Bill listened intently, sensing the gravity of the President’s words.
“Are you saying you will withdraw from the race, sir?”
“Yes,”
President Thompson replied with resolve.
“I am. I will support Senator Adams. She has the vision and the strength to lead us through these turbulent times. My focus now will be on ensuring a smooth transition and doing everything I can to help her succeed.”
Bill nodded, understanding the magnitude of the decision.
“I’ll prepare the statement for the press, Mr. President. Withdrawing from the race will shock many, but it’s a selfless act that people will remember throughout history.”
As Bill left to handle the media, President Thompson took a moment to reflect. He had dedicated his life to serving his country; now, he was making the ultimate sacrifice for its future. It wasn’t an easy decision, but it was the right one.
When the time came, President Thompson stood before the nation, his voice steady and his gaze unwavering.
“My fellow Americans,” he began, “after much contemplation and discussion with my closest advisors, I have decided to withdraw from the presidential reelection campaign. Our country needs unity, and I believe Senator Adams is the right leader for this critical time. I will dedicate my efforts to supporting her and ensuring we progress together.”
The news reverberated across the country, a mixture of surprise and admiration. President Thompson’s decision was a testament to his character and commitment to the nation’s well-being. As he stepped aside, he felt a sense of peace, knowing that he had placed his country before himself, making the ultimate sacrifice for its future. A bittersweet feeling of relief and sadness washed over him, but he knew he had done the right thing.
The tides of change swept through every street, home, and heart in the nation’s heart. It was an era marked by uncertainty and tension as a rising conservative movement began to reshape the very fabric of society. The once-balanced scales of politics now tipped heavily in favor of those who believed in tradition, order, and a return to what they called “the good old days.”
~ Emma Caldwell, a liberal activist and journalist, sat in her small apartment, the glow of her laptop illuminating her worried face. She had spent years fighting for progress—campaigning for equal rights, environmental protection, and social justice. But now, every headline seemed to bring another blow to the causes she held dear, intensifying the urgency of her mission.
~
The latest news was the most disturbing yet: a proposed amendment to the constitution that would severely restrict freedom of speech and assembly, effectively silencing dissent and opposition. Emma’s fingers flew across the keyboard as she typed out an article, her words mixing passion and desperation. She knew that getting the truth out was more important than ever.
Across town, in a grand office overlooking the city, Senator Marcus Reid, a leading figure in the conservative movement, reviewed the day’s agenda. He believed sincerely in his cause, convinced the country had lost its way in a maze of liberal policies and needed to return to its core values. To him, the changes were necessary, even if they were painful.
As the days passed, protests erupted across the nation. Streets filled with a sea of faces—young and old, united by a shared fear of losing their rights. Emma was among them, her camera capturing the raw emotions of the crowd. She interviewed people from all walks of life: the single mother worried about her children’s future, the college student anxious about the loss of academic freedom, the elderly couple who had fought for civil rights decades ago and now saw history repeating itself.
Despite the growing unrest, the conservative agenda pushed forward relentlessly. The lawmakers passed laws at a dizzying pace, each chipping away at the freedoms many had taken for granted. These laws included [specific laws], which directly affected [specific groups of people]. The country seemed to be spiraling into a new era of authoritarianism, and the hope that once burned brightly in the hearts of liberals began to dim.
Emma found herself at a crossroads. Her work was censored, and her voice was stifled by the very government she had once trusted to protect her freedoms. But she refused to give up. Gathering a small group of like-minded individuals, she formed an underground network dedicated to preserving and disseminating information. Their determination was a silent but powerful force, inspiring others with their unwavering resolve.
Senator Reid, now one of the most powerful men in the country, began to sense the growing resistance. He dismissed it at first, confident that his vision was the right path. However, as the underground movement gained momentum, Senator Reid realized that silencing dissent was more complex than passing laws. The human spirit, he discovered, was not so quickly subdued. One evening, Emma received a message from an anonymous source—a high-ranking government official who had grown disillusioned with the conservative regime. The source provided her with classified documents detailing the administration’s plans to tighten their grip on power further.
These documents revealed [specific details], a dangerous revelation, but Emma knew it was the spark needed to ignite a more significant movement.
She leaked the documents to the public with the help of her network. The revelations shook the country, and the streets again filled with protesters. This time, their numbers were more significant, and their resolve was more robust, demonstrating the potential impact of collective action. The conservative government, facing unprecedented pressure, began to falter.
Senator Reid watched as the country he had tried to reshape slipped from his grasp. He had underestimated the people’s power and ability to unite and fight for their rights. As the conservative movement began to crumble, a new era of political awakening dawned.
Emma stood on the capitol’s steps, her camera in hand, capturing the momentous events unfolding before her. She knew the battle was far from over, but she felt a glimmer of hope for the first time in a long while. The changing times had tested the nation’s spirit, but in the end, its people’s resilience and determination prevailed.
It was the end of October, and the nation seemed to be in a state of distraction, unaware of the critical choice before them. Two men were vying for the highest office in the land, each bringing with him a starkly different vision for the future. The contrast between their characters and intentions was as clear as day, yet the people’s attention was elsewhere. The urgency of the situation was palpable, but the people were yet to realize the gravity of their decision.
The first candidate was an elder statesman, a man whose career in public service spanned decades. He had held nearly every elected position imaginable, from local government to the halls of Congress. His dedication to the country was unwavering, a testament to his deep-seated patriotism. His life’s work, a reflection of his commitment to protecting the essence of the country he loved, was a beacon of trust and reliability for the nation.
In stark contrast stood the second candidate, a man whose motives were as transparent as they were troubling. Self-serving and careless, he made no secret of his intentions. He openly declared that, if elected, he would rule with an iron fist, punishing his enemies and consolidating power from day one. His rhetoric was filled with hate, yet the people, weary of the same old political games, dismissed his threats as mere bluster. This transparency, however, should have been a warning sign, a call for vigilance in the face of such extremism.
The campaign’s intensity grew as the days turned into weeks, yet the nation’s focus remained elsewhere. Perhaps it was the fatigue of constant political turmoil or the distractions of everyday life, but the electorate seemed indifferent, almost numb. They laughed off the second candidate’s tirades, convinced that such extremism could never take root in their democracy.
Election day arrived, and with it, a shocking outcome. The self-serving, hateful man had won. The people who had laughed at his threats now watched in stunned silence as he took the oath of office. His promises of dictatorship were not idle threats; they were his blueprint for governance, a reality that had suddenly come to pass. This was not just the result of one man’s ambition, but a collective decision made by the electorate.
From the very first day, the new President began to reshape the government to suit his whims. He targeted his opponents with a vengeance, using the full power of his office to silence dissent. Civil liberties and democratic institutions were eroded and undermined. The press, once the people’s watchdog, was muzzled. The judiciary, a bulwark against tyranny, was co-opted. His actions, such as [specific actions], tightened his authoritarian grip and spread fear like wildfire.
The oldest-ever President, now retired, watched in horror as the nation he had served so faithfully became dismantled piece by piece. His warnings had gone unheeded, his life’s work seemingly undone in months. Once so dismissive of the threat, the people found themselves powerless to stop the descent into chaos. The retired President, too, felt the weight of his powerlessness, a stark contrast to his years of service and influence.
It was the end of the nation, an Ending which the country could have avoided.nation. An Ending that could have been avoided.
Mudslinging, once the most reprehensible act a political contestant could commit, was a behavior that branded the perpetrator as untrustworthy, someone respectable voters would never support. These were the days when community bonds were robust. Neighbors were familiar faces, and the widow down the street was always checked on. People went out of their way to support a friend’s business, driven by loyalty and the value of relationships.
Courtesy was not just a virtue, it was a way of life. You didn’t honk at the car ahead for hesitating at a stop sign, and everyone, regardless of race, was treated with respect. You honored their facilities at sporting events in neighboring towns, expecting the same respect in return during your homecoming games. These were the values that held our society together, and their erosion is a cause for concern.
Winning an election was once a sign of trust in the democratic process. It meant the elected individual would represent the community, county, state, or nation for their term. There was no need for your parents to rally the neighbors, seeking to punish those who voted differently or to overturn the results. They trusted the process and the enduring truth. However, today, this trust has seemingly eroded, and the need for reflection and change in our political and social interactions is more pressing than ever.
Today, it seems that the aim is not just to win, but to annihilate the opponent’s life and reputation.
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.
Visit Leaders We Deserve
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 Interviewof 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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
I recently sat down and tackled a project I had avoided for years. It involved a collection of hundreds of photos of my family. Photos, as far as I can tell, ever since the invention of the camera. Family members I knew, knew of, or who had died before I was born, all there staring back at me. I recollected many of the stories told to me by my grandparents, dad, and mother. So, with these stories, I want to begin sharing some photos with my regular mix of information. There are several already posted at benandsteve.com on the home page. You will also find updates on other pages on the site. ✌️🏼
Billy Idol was doing a cover of “Mony Mony“…a song written and performed originally by Tommy James and the Shondells in 1968. The meaning of MonyMony is simply…Mutual of New York Insurance Company. M-O-N-Y.
Tommy James explained in an interview: “Originally, we did the track without a song. And the idea was to create a party rock record; in 1968 that was pretty much of a throwback to the early ’60s. Nobody was making party rock records really in 1968, those big-drum-California-sun-what-I-sing-money-type songs. And so I wanted to do a party rock record.
And we went in the studio, and we pasted this thing together out of drums here, and a guitar riff here. It was called sound surgery, and we finally put it together in probably a month. We had most of the words to the song, but we still had no title. And it’s just driving us nuts, because we’re looking for like a ‘Sloopy’ or some crazy name – it had to be a two-syllable girl’s name that was memorable and silly and kind of stupid sounding. So we knew what kind of a word we had, it’s just that everything we came up with sounded so bad. So Ritchie Cordell, my songwriting partner and I, are up in my apartment up at 888 Eighth Avenue in New York. And finally we get disgusted, we throw our guitars down, we go out on the terrace, we light up a cigarette, and we look up into the sky. And the first thing our eyes fall on is the Mutual of New York Insurance Company. M-O-N-Y. True story. With a dollar sign in the middle of the O, and it gave you the time and the temperature.
I had looked at this thing for years, and it was sitting there looking me right in the face. We saw this at the same time, and we both just started laughing. We said, ‘That’s perfect! What could be more perfect than that?’ Mony, M-O-N-Y, Mutual of New York. And so we must have laughed for about ten minutes, and that became the title of the song.”
The Story Of My Grandparents May Hold Guiding Strengths For Us Today
(gifted clock)
The story of my grandparents’ union goes back to August 10th, 1910. They wed on the Caddo and Washita County Line near where SH-152 is today, West of Cobb Creek. On that day, my grandfather, Benjamin Harrison Groff I., known as “Pop,” and my grandmother, Florence Lula McElroy, known as “Mom,” received a clock from Pop’s brother-in-law and sister, John and Laura Alice Groff Dowty. A piece of further history, Pop’s father was born in Switzerland, and Mom’s Father came into the world in Louisianna before its statehood.
It was in 1908 that Florence traveled with some of her siblings to the area to visit her brother Jim, who had married into the McLemore family. While visiting, she met Benjamin and fell in love; in those days, Ben was to ask her father for a hand in marriage before asking the bride. But Florence’s father was in that 3-state area of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas and unable to travel due to his age. Economically, the to-be groom could not travel to the area. So, the agreement was that the bride’s oldest brother, John, would come to Eakly and consider Benjamin’s request for her hand in marriage. And John rode a horse from far southeast Oklahoma to Eakly, Oklahoma, for the request. The answer must have been yes because they wed.
Mom’s family lived in Southwest Arkansas, Southeast Oklahoma, and parts of Northeast Texas. They were within rock-throwing distance, and they never knew which state they were in. Her father was a Baptist preacher who led a fire and brimstone ministry and led by strict rule. He had fought in the Civil War, but on which side I never knew. The only answer I ever got was, “he fought on the right side.” There were twelve kids in the McElroy family. Some of them were dead by old age when I was born in 1963.
Groff BARN
The Groff family migrated from Illinois, where Pop’s father was a farmer. He was known for having a huge barn in the community. It is one of the only to have been built by his sons and stands without a single piece of iron or nail. The Groff Barn built by Ulrich Groff and his sons remained put together using carpentry skills Ulrich Groff’s father taught him from the old land as late as 2000.
Above a rowdy bunch together the Groff Brothers who built the all wood barn in Illinois, in the 1800s.
OTIS GROFF
in 1905 two sons, Otis and Benjamin, took advantage of the opening of land in Oklahoma and claimed property west of Cobb Creek, north of SH-152 and Highway 58. It was then known as 41 Highway and Alfalfa Road. The brothers built two homes; Benjamin’s was on the property where, over sixty-five years later, the baseball player from Eakly, Michael Moore, and his family would live. It is the same home where the couple, Mom and Pop, would later raise three children and adopt another unofficially, taking in others in need. The father of the boys, Ulrich, came to Oklahoma, but word was he was afraid of being attacked by Indians, so he went back to Illinois.
(Mom & Pop Wedding Day)
On the day of their wedding, sitting in a buggy along a dirt road west of Cobb Creek, a photographer was on hand to record an image of the couple, and then John Dowty handed them a new clock he had bought from a hardware store in Eakly. To keep their love from running out of time. The clock remained in their home, ticking every day since.
The couple had three children: Bennie Ulridge, Dortha Eliouse, and JD.
JD GROFF 14YOA. 1936
My dad, JD, is named after John Dowty. But the Mom and Pop wished to honor a man known as either Big John Dowty or Uncle John Dowty by using just the two initials, without an abbreviation. It sometimes appeared as a curse for my dad because he would go through life telling people who placed periods with J and D that they had incorrectly spelled his name. I have heard him say, “It’s two letters, and you mess it up!”
Ben H. ‘Pop’ Groff I
The Clock: Even after retiring from their farm and moving to town, they took the clock, which remained essential to their lives. It remained running, being cleaned at a clock repair once, only when Mom and Pop watched over the repair man like hawks. When they passed, it came to my parent’s home, where it sat on the fireplace mantel and went silent. When the day came for our family to sell our homeplace, I retrieved the clock and brought it to Arizona. My first task was to clean it. It keeps time great. It is picky and must be balanced, and its ticker has to be ‘set’ at just the right spot, or it will stop. It is picky about the key turning the spring up tight. The springs are old. So it is like an old violin and has to be handled with kid gloves. The wood is brittle and old, and the design is very ornate. It may not be to the liking of every modern setting. But, it is over one hundred years old and dear. And it holds many hours of memories of sitting at my grandparents, hearing its tick-tock, listening to their stories, worries, and hopes for the day.
Mom & Pop Groff
The older people were our glue. They would hold yearly family reunions after the harvest had ended. Celebrate every holiday grandly and make weekends and summers the most incredible escapes. Plus, they oozed with class and style. The character and morals they possessed are qualities sorely missed and that are needed today as we try to soar in this world of divided opinions.
When Good Guys And Gals Still Finished First. They Were Made To.
JD Groff & his Horse My Molly’s Reed
My dad was known for doing such things unselfishly. He had a reputation throughout Western Oklahoma as a trustworthy horseman and businessman. I found this article while going through clippings. I discovered that it had been stored in an attic at my parent’s home after my mother sold it to move in with relatives due to her age. I was born in 1963 and have never heard this story. I had listened to my grandmother speak of a story in national newspapers about my dad helping a man, but I thought it had something to do with his being in World War II. He never spoke much of the past and only looked to the future. Something that I became used to and have often found myself doing until I found boxes of memories that took me into the lives of my parents and grandparents and a life that I am proud of bragging about.
(The following piece was first presented on Quora when a question was poised by a Trump supporter.)
I’m a little perplexed by your attitude here – why does it need to be so adversarial?
Let’s be straight here, though: Democrats don’t want to stop you voting for whoever you please. That’s the nature of a democracy: everybody gets a voice, and you can use that voice as you see fit. If you want to vote for Donald Trump, go right ahead – just know that you’re telling us quite a bit about yourself when you make that choice, and it’s not a positive one.
This is the part, I suspect, that some Republicans don’t understand. Democrats largely wouldn’t want to stop you from voting, although we can’t say the same for Republicans, because they do want to stop people voting, judging by all the state-level attempts at voter suppression. What we want is for you to stop making such god-awful decisions when you do vote. We want you to pick someone that raises your aspirations and wants something better for you, rather than the lowest common denominator.
We get it: you want to “own the libs”, and you want someone that will aggressively go after those people who don’t agree with you. I can understand that: you guys don’t like your lifestyle or beliefs being challenged, and when you feel that way, you probably feel under threat, and the response some will take in that situation is to lash out. You’re letting people like Donald Trump do that on your behalf.
Problem is, when you make decisions like that, you’re only thinking about yourself or your local bubble, rather than what’s best for everyone. The United States isn’t a religious, social or political monoculture: it’s an inclusive society that has a diverse range of beliefs, opinions and choices. Any effective government exists not to promote just the well-being of a single group (e.g. white ‘conservative’ Christians), but rather to promote what’s best for everybody.
Your choices aren’t something I’d consider laudable: I won’t stop you making them, because you have to let people make mistakes in order to learn from them. But you’re out of your mind if you don’t think I won’t advocate better choices, or at least encourage you to see your mistakes for what they are.
So, by all means, vote for Donald Trump if you must, but recognise that I’ll disagree with your choice, and encourage you to make better ones. When I look at who to vote for, I’ll always aim for the person who has higher aspirations for the country, for who has a clear desire to break past partisan bickering and legislative logjam, and aim to do what’s best for everyone, including you. You and I both know that Donald Trump is mostly out there to do what’s best for himself, and that you’re okay with that provided he hurts those you don’t agree with.
Just remember that these things have a way of backfiring. You put an aggressive, adversarial and ignorant President into office, particularly one known for cheating, philandering and lying his ass off, and it’s only a matter of time before he turns against you, particularly if he doesn’t feel the need for you anymore.
I think you can do better. Actually, I think you must do better. That’s what being a “true American” is all about, after all: striving towards something that was better than what came before it. It’s rather worrying that too many Americans have forgotten that.
BENANDSTEVEDOTCOM THE INSTAGRAM.COM PAGE
INFORMATION AND MORE THAT MAY BE USEFUL IN DAILY LIFE.
