election

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

BenjaminLeave a comment

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

(And a Merry Christmas…)

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

4–7 minutes

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

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

Key Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Summary

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

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

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

Why this matters

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

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

Constitutional Rights of Immigrants

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

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

References

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

🗳️ Call to Action: Truth Over Talk

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

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

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

The Howard Family Intervention: When the All-American Dream Met the Algorithm

Benjamin1 Comment

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

4–5 minutes

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.

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

What Will Happen If PLANS To End Social Security Happens?

Benjamin2 Comments
3–4 minutes

If Social Security were eliminated, the effects would be wide-ranging. It would touch nearly every part of American life. This is especially true for retirees, people with disabilities, and survivors of deceased workers. Here’s how it would unfold:

1. Immediate Loss of Income for Millions

Social Security now provides monthly benefits to over 70 million Americans, including retirees, disabled individuals, and surviving spouses or children. Without it, many of these households would lose their main or only source of income overnight.

  • Retirees: Many older Americans rely on Social Security for the bulk of their income—especially those without significant savings or pensions.
  • Survivors: Widows, widowers, and children who now get survivor benefits would lose critical support.
  • Disabled workers: People incapable of work due to disability would lose a major safety net.

2. Surge in Poverty Rates

Before Social Security, poverty among the elderly was extremely high—estimates put it at around 35–50%. The program cut that rate dramatically. Without it, poverty rates among older Americans will return to pre-1935 levels.

3. Strain on Families and Local Communities

The financial burden of caring for elderly or disabled relatives would shift heavily to families. Those without family support be forced into underfunded state programs or charitable care.

  • Families need to delay retirement, take on extra jobs, or house multiple generations under one roof.
  • Local charities and churches would see rising demand for basic necessities like food and shelter.

4. Ripple Effects on the Economy

Social Security benefits aren’t just “checks”—they fuel spending in local economies. Without those payments:

  • Rural and small-town economies (which often have higher percentages of retirees) see sharp declines in consumer spending.
  • Certain industries—especially healthcare, retail, and housing—would feel immediate impacts.

5. Political and Social Fallout

Because Social Security is one of the most popular federal programs, ending it would be politically explosive. It would lead to intense public backlash, large-scale protests, and significant shifts in voter behavior.

  • States try to create their own replacement programs, but poorer states struggle to fund them.
  • The wealth gap would widen sharply. Those without private retirement savings would be left with little to no safety net.

POLITICS

Social Security has existed for 90 years. Why it is more threatened than ever

Click above headline for AP Story on how Social Security is threatened now more than ever!

By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 

The Social Security Administration (SSA) stands proud according to a press release by the Trump Administration.

August 2025 commemorates its 90th anniversary. It marks its unwavering commitment to the financial security and dignity of millions of Americans. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935. Since then, the program has grown into one of the most successful and trusted institutions in American history.

“For 90 years, Social Security has stood as a promise kept. It ensures that older Americans have the support they need. It also aids people with disabilities, as well as families facing loss,”

said Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano.

“As we honor this legacy, we are also building a future. This future is where service is faster, smarter, and more accessible than ever before. Through President Trump’s vision, we are protecting and preserving Social Security. We achieve this by delivering extraordinary customer service through technological improvements. Enhanced process engineering also plays a crucial role.”

In an open letter to the American people, Commissioner Bisignano emphasized the importance of Social Security. He highlighted his commitment to strengthening the agency. He also mentioned the significant improvements to customer service achieved in his first 100 days in office.

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

Today, Commissioner Bisignano also joined President Donald J. Trump at the White House. The President issued a presidential proclamation. He recommitted to always defend Social Security. He recognized the countless contributions of every American senior. They have invested their time, talent, and resources into our Nation’s future. 

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

Unpacking ‘Make America Great Again’: What MAGA Overlooks in Its Vision of the Past

BenjaminLeave a comment

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

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.

What to Expect if Authoritarianism Takes Over in 2025

BenjaminLeave a comment

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.

A Letter From An American Adresses Fascism – First Alerting American troops To Avoid It In 1943! Today Americans Are Voting For It!

BenjaminLeave a comment

Today’s Voice Is By Heather Cox Richardson Posted By: Benjamin Groff II© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

You can read more by Heather Cox Richardson Letter’s From An American here.

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.” 

— Read more from Heather Cox Richardson by clicking here!

Notes:

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=armytalks

War Department, “Army Talk 64: FASCISM!” March 24, 1945, at https://archive.org/details/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-Fascism/mode/2up

Concerning Remarks by Former President Trump Regarding Military Burial and Generals

BenjaminLeave a comment

By: Benjamin Groff II© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

A recent news segment broadcasted by MSNBC-TV News says that former President Donald Trump reportedly made a controversial remark regarding the cost of burying a Hispanic woman he described as a “f–King Mexican” who had been killed and mutilated at a Texas Army base by a fellow soldier. The burial expenses reportedly amounted to approximately $80,000. Trump allegedly expressed frustration, saying it cost “too fucking much money” to provide the soldier with a proper burial.

This statement, if accurate, raises significant concerns about the former president’s attitude toward the treatment of military personnel, particularly those of Mexican heritage, as well as the costs associated with honoring fallen soldiers. The issue transcends one demographic and speaks to broader implications about how different groups—Mexicans, military members, and their families—are treated and respected within the national discourse.

John Kelly says Trump is a Fascist!”

In addition to this disturbing comment, the report also highlighted another alarming remark by Trump, where he expressed a desire for military generals akin to those in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. Given its historical connotations, this remark should be receiving widespread attention in both mainstream and military-focused media, especially during a presidential election cycle.

However, despite their gravity, these statements have not dominated headlines in the way one might expect. The lack of focus on such inflammatory remarks is concerning, particularly given their implications for how a future Trump administration might handle military leadership and diverse communities.

These statements deserve heightened scrutiny from Spanish-speaking news outlets, military programs, and even women’s rights advocates, as they touch on crucial issues of race, leadership, and the treatment of soldiers. The implications of a leader aspiring to emulate Hitler’s generals, combined with dismissive comments about the costs of burying a soldier, suggest dangerous intentions for the future should Trump get re-elected.

The absence of widespread discussion on these matters is troubling, as the importance of holding political leaders accountable for their statements must be balanced, especially when they potentially foreshadow harmful policies.

The Damning Implications of Donald Trump’s Threat of Mass Deportations on Americans

Former President Donald Trump has once again put mass deportations at the forefront of his political agenda, threatening to implement a sweeping policy of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants if he gets re-elected. This proposal raises numerous concerns about the economic, social, and moral ramifications for the United States, with devastating consequences not only for immigrant communities but also for the country as a whole.

Economic Fallout

Mass deportations would have a profound negative impact on the U.S. economy. Undocumented immigrants contribute significantly to various sectors, including agriculture, construction, hospitality, and healthcare. Removing millions of workers from these industries would lead to severe labor shortages, driving up production costs and potentially creating inflationary pressures that affect all Americans. Businesses would need help filling vacancies, especially in labor-intensive jobs that many Americans are unwilling or unable to take on. The ripple effect would result in reduced productivity, increased costs for products and services, and a contraction in critical industries, including food production and construction.

Additionally, undocumented immigrants contribute billions of dollars to local and federal taxes each year, including sales and property taxes. Their removal would shrink this tax base, creating budgetary shortfalls for essential services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. The cost of enforcing mass deportations—estimated to be in the hundreds of billions—would burden the federal government and taxpayers.

Social Impact

The human cost of mass deportations cannot be understated. Deportations would tear apart families, many of which include U.S. citizens. An estimated six million U.S.-born children live with at least one undocumented parent, and these children would face traumatic separations that could lead to long-term psychological harm. Communities, particularly those with large immigrant populations, would experience destabilization as families and social networks get disrupted, potentially altering the fabric of our society.

The fear and uncertainty generated by the threat of mass deportations would create a climate of mistrust between migrant communities and law enforcement, causing it to be more challenging for authorities to solve crimes or maintain order in immigrant-dense areas. Many undocumented individuals contribute to the community fabric by volunteering, attending schools, and participating in religious and civic organizations, and their forced removal would erode these social bonds.

Moral and Political Implications

Mass deportations also raise profound moral questions about America’s identity as a nation built on immigration. For centuries, the U.S. has stood as a beacon of hope and opportunity for people fleeing persecution, poverty, and violence. Deporting millions of people en masse, many of whom have resided in the U.S. for decades, sends a harsh message that contradicts these ideals. Such a policy risks deepening racial and ethnic divisions, stoking xenophobia, and inciting further polarization in an already divided political landscape, threatening the unity of our nation.

Politically, Trump’s plan for mass deportations is likely to galvanize opposition not just from immigrant rights groups but also from many sectors of society, including businesses, religious organizations, and community leaders who recognize the humanitarian and economic risks of such an approach. The request is likely to face legal challenges as well, potentially sparking a constitutional debate over due process, civil liberties, and the limits of executive power, offering a glimmer of hope for the preservation of our democratic principles.

Broader Impact on National Security and Foreign Relations

Mass deportations could also have negative consequences for national security. If immigrants are too afraid to report crimes or cooperate with law enforcement, it could undermine efforts to fight human trafficking, drug smuggling, or other criminal activities. Additionally, the U.S.’s standing in the global community could get tarnished as other nations criticize the harshness of the policy, straining diplomatic relationships with key allies, particularly in Latin America.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s threat to implement mass deportations would have dire consequences for Americans. It would inflict severe economic damage, cause profound social harm, and challenge the nation’s moral fabric. Rather than solving immigration issues, such a policy would exacerbate existing problems while undermining the values of inclusivity and opportunity that the U.S. has long championed. The broader national and international fallout from this approach would have far-reaching effects on the country’s domestic stability and global reputation.

End

MAGA Is Not The First To Attempt And Bring Down America. A Populist Movement Nearly Destroyed American Democracy Over 110 Years Ago

BenjaminLeave a comment

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

Over a century ago, the United States grappled with a political movement that bears striking similarities to today’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement, a populist uprising spearheaded by former President Donald Trump. Like MAGA, this earlier movement thrived on populist discontent, nativist sentiments, and a rejection of the established order. If not kept in check, it could have reshaped American democracy in ways that might have undermined its democratic institutions, a peril we must remain vigilant against.

One of the most significant instances of this was during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency, a man with intricate political loyalties. In 1912, Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party brought populist elements into the political mainstream, appealing to working-class voters who felt marginalized by the two major parties. While Roosevelt was not anti-democratic, his charismatic leadership style and his ability to rally crowds around a strongman image set a precedent for future political movements that would seek to undermine democratic norms.

Simultaneously, the rise of the “America First” movement and the Ku Klux Klan spanning the 1920s showed how easily populist rhetoric could veer into exclusionary nationalism and nativism. The Klan’s widespread influence reached local, state, and federal government levels, promoting an agenda that sought to disenfranchise non-white citizens, immigrants, and anyone considered “un-American.” This movement found an audience among rural and working-class Americans who felt left behind by the rapid industrialization and modernization of the country.

At the heart of these movements was a profound distrust of the government, elites, and institutions—just like the anti-establishment fervor that fueled the rise of MAGA. These movements aimed to “restore” a vision of America rooted in racial and social hierarchies, often using violent rhetoric and intimidation to achieve their goals. Had these populist forces gained more traction, they could have severely damaged the democratic foundation of the country, ushering in a more authoritarian regime.

It took concerted efforts from both citizens and political leaders to resist these dangerous movements and restore democratic norms. In some ways, the lessons from over a century ago echo loudly today: unchecked populism, especially when it flirts with nativism and authoritarianism, can bring democracy to the brink of collapse. However, this history also reminds us of our power to shape the future of our democracy, offering hope and inspiration for positive change.

Today, as MAGA remains a force in American politics, it is crucial to remember that the battle to preserve democracy requires vigilance. While populism can express legitimate grievances of people who feel left behind, it must not be allowed to erode the very institutions that allow democracy to function. History teaches us that democracy’s survival depends on our collective ability to balance popular anger with reasoned leadership and respect for the rule of law. We all have a role to play in this ongoing struggle, and it is our vigilance that will keep democracy alive.

You can also find a more information concerning this subject at Salon.com click here.

The Impact of Leadership on American Democracy

BenjaminLeave a comment

Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

As we approach the upcoming elections, it’s crucial to remember that Americans are empowered to shape the nation’s trajectory every four years through their votes. When exercised responsibly and carefully reflecting on our past and present, this powerful right allows us to make decisions that align with our shared values and hopes for the future. Informed voting is not just a privilege—it’s a responsibility that enables us to build a future reflective of our ideals.

It’s sometimes helpful to step back and gain perspective to understand the present. Our current situation may seem overwhelming, but history often shows us that our challenges are more complex than we remember. Reflecting on past leadership and decisions not only reassures us but also guides us toward a more thoughtful approach to what lies ahead, providing a sense of reassurance and guidance.

Under the Trump administration, America experienced a turbulent period domestically and internationally. Families traveling abroad faced significant challenges, particularly when trying to return to the U.S. Students awaiting critical funding for their education found themselves in bureaucratic limbo. The economy saw dramatic fluctuations, with the stock market swinging between highs and lows and housing prices manipulated to benefit the wealthy. Trump’s philosophy favored personal gain over the nation’s welfare, leaving many Americans to navigate an unstable economy.

Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was a defining moment of his presidency, marked by widespread criticism. His dismissive attitude toward the virus allowed it to sweep across the country unchecked, leading to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. He offered unscientific remedies, such as suggesting the use of disinfectants and promoting unproven drugs, and downplayed the severity of the crisis, causing further confusion and panic. His response to local disasters, for instance, his visit to Puerto Rico, where he threw paper towels into the crowd, reflected a troubling lack of empathy and leadership.

Moreover, during his presidency, Trump distanced himself from the traditions of decency and respect that past leaders upheld. He neglected to offer condolences to families of prominent Americans who passed, such as Barbara and George Bush, choosing instead to focus on personal leisure like golfing. Trump’s lack of emotional support marked a stark departure from the dignified conduct expected of a sitting president.

Domestically, Trump’s immigration policies, which included strict border controls and deportation of undocumented immigrants, led to labor shortages, particularly in the service industry, where businesses struggled to find staff. His administration’s aggressive stance on immigration had unintended consequences, with many sectors unable to recover after being stripped of their workforce.

On the international stage, Trump’s cozy relationships with authoritarian leaders in North Korea and Russia raised alarms about national security. His handling of classified information, especially the top-secret documents stored at Mar-a-Lago, left Americans wondering what was compromised and who had access to it.

By contrast, the Biden administration has worked tirelessly to restore stability and dignity to the president’s office. Under Biden’s leadership, the economy has rebounded, and significant investments have been made in infrastructure, including road repairs, bridge replacements, and expanded internet access. His administration, though not without flaws, has prioritized the well-being of the American people, bringing a sense of civility and optimism back to the White House, highlighting the profound impact of leadership on democracy.

While sometimes criticized for being cautious, Biden’s approach to governance is rooted in diplomacy and careful planning. He brought America back to a position of respect globally, fostering relationships with allies and upholding democratic values. As Vice President, Kamala Harris has quietly supported these efforts, often working behind the scenes but prepared to step into leadership if needed.

While no administration is perfect, it’s essential to recognize the progress made under Biden, especially compared to the chaos that marked Trump’s time in office. Biden inherited a nation with a 12% unemployment rate and shuttered businesses. Yet, within a year, he and Harris turned things around, rebuilding a country on the brink of collapse.

As we move forward, it’s critical to remember where we came from and who has been steering

Take A Ride With Kamala on Air Force 1 – Ridin’ With Biden! Click on Image above!

Providing Pivotal Role For Family Members In Runup To Election Day! How Family Matters…

BenjaminLeave a comment

A Report By: Benjamin Groff II© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures IMDbPro

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.

What If My Candidate Doesn’t Win? What Do I Do on Election Day?

BenjaminLeave a comment

A Report By: Benjamin Groff© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures

Election Day is a moment filled with hope, anticipation, and often anxiety as we vote for the candidates we believe in. However, there’s always the possibility that the candidate we support won’t win. So, what should you do if that happens? Here are a few constructive actions to consider when facing such an outcome.

  • Remember That Democracy Is About Participation, Not Just Winning

Democracy thrives on diverse opinions; your vote is a meaningful contribution to that system. Even if your candidate doesn’t win, participating in the democratic process is vital. It sends a message about your values, priorities, and what you believe is best for your community or country.

Instead of viewing the result as a failure, consider it a reflection of the broader political landscape and the desires of your fellow citizens. Democracy works because people are free to express differing opinions, and your vote, win or lose, plays a vital role in configuring the future.

  • Engage in Positive Civic Action

Remember, politics doesn’t end on Election Day. There are numerous ways to stay involved in the causes you care about. Even if your candidate doesn’t win, the issues they represent remain crucial. Consider joining advocacy groups, volunteering for community organizations, or attending city council meetings. Your civic engagement at the local level can directly impact your community more than national politics. By continuing to advocate for the issues that matter most to you, you’re helping to shape policy and public opinion, regardless of the election result.

By continuing to advocate for the issues that matter most to you, you’re helping to shape policy and public opinion, regardless of the election result.

  • Be Respectful of Others’ Views

Election outcomes can feel deeply personal, especially when we are passionate about a candidate or cause. However, it’s important to remember that democracy requires respect for differing viewpoints. Avoid lashing out at those who supported the opposition if your candidate doesn’t win. Instead, engage in respectful dialogue and understand why others voted differently.

Remember, productive conversations can lead to greater understanding and help build coalitions for future elections. Your ability to listen and engage constructively can influence future political outcomes. By continuing to advocate for the issues that matter most to you, you’re helping to shape policy and public opinion, regardless of the election result.

  • Prepare for the Next Election

The results of one election are not the end of the story. Candidates and policies evolve, and new elections will always come. Take this time to reflect on why your candidate didn’t win. Were their policies too out of step with the electorate? Was the campaign messaging weak? Understanding these factors can help you become a more informed voter and activist in the next election cycle.

Consider getting involved in the early stages of the next campaign. Whether you work on voter registration drives, participate in debates, or even consider running for local office yourself, the future is always open to those who stay engaged.

  • Stay Informed and Hold Leaders Accountable

Regardless of who wins, it’s crucial to stay informed about what elected leaders are doing once they are in office. Please pay attention to their decisions and promises they keep or fail to keep. Even if your preferred candidate loses, your role as a constituent remains critical. You can hold elected officials accountable by writing letters, making phone calls, or organizing petitions. Democracy doesn’t end at the ballot box. Citizens’ ongoing scrutiny and engagement ensure that leaders remain responsive to the people’s needs.

Democracy doesn’t end at the ballot box. Citizens’ ongoing scrutiny and engagement ensure that leaders remain responsive to the people’s needs.

  • Take Care of Your Emotional Well-Being

Elections can be emotionally taxing if you heavily invest in a particular candidate or outcome. If the result doesn’t go your way, it’s natural to feel disappointed or frustrated. Take some time to process your emotions healthily. Talk to friends or family members about your feelings, participate in activities that bring you joy and distract you from disappointment, or take a break from politics altogether for a few days to give yourself a mental reset. Remember, it’s okay to feel disappointed, but it’s important to take care of yourself during these times.

Maintaining your emotional well-being is essential for yourself and your ability to continue contributing positively to political discussions and future elections.

Conclusion

If your candidate doesn’t win on Election Day, don’t despair. Democracy is a long and evolving process, and every election provides new opportunities for learning and growth. By staying engaged, respecting others’ views, and preparing for future elections, you can continue to be a positive force for the issues you care about. Your participation matters, win or lose, and it’s through this continued involvement that meaningful change happens over time.

2024 Hand-Counting Election: A Tale of Two Residents counting the nations ballots

BenjaminLeave a comment

A Story By: Benjamin Groff© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures

In the heart of the dusty plains, where tumbleweeds rolled lazily across the horizon, sat the humble town of Booterville. A place so small it didn’t even appear on most maps. Known for little more than its annual chili cook-off and the town’s general store, Booterville got entrusted with one of the most critical tasks in the 2024 election: hand-counting every vote nationwide.

Rumor had it that some miscommunication at a high level led to Booterville’s selection. The plan had been simple: With all the national turmoil surrounding electronic voting machines, distrust of mail-in ballots, and other voting controversies, someone high up had the idea to return to a “simpler” method—hand counting. Unfortunately, the job landed in the laps of Booterville’s only two permanent residents qualified to take on the task: Earl and Maude Jenkins.

Earl and Maude, both pushing 80, had stayed in Booterville for decades. Earl was a retired mailman with a sharp eye for sorting, while Maude was known for her days as the town librarian, meticulous in her record-keeping, and famous for knitting scarves with perfect symmetry. Together, they formed what the nation had come to call the “Election Duo.”

As election night approached, the rest of the country anxiously prepared for the returns. Cable news channels buzzed with frantic energy. Experts spoke confidently about the “return to integrity” with hand-counted ballots. However, they could only explain how it was physically possible for two people to count hundreds of millions of votes promptly. Analysts debated whether the results would come in within hours, days, or—worst case—months.

Booterville, meanwhile, was calm, as always. Earl and Maude sat on their front porch, sipping sweet tea, staring at the horizon where, in just a few hours, trucks would arrive carrying boxes upon boxes of ballots from all over the country.

Election night finally arrived, and the nightmare began.

The first truck pulled up right on time—around 9 p.m.—loaded with crates of ballots from California. Earl scratched his head and squinted at the car, which stretched longer than the main street of Booterville itself.

“Well, I reckon we best get started,”

He muttered.

As Maude gingerly opened the first crate, the magnitude of the task became apparent. Inside were hundreds of thousands of paper ballots, each needing to be verified, double-checked, and counted by hand. Earl retrieved an abacus from their parlor, confident that the ancient method would sufficiently tally the votes.

Across the nation, voters stared at their television screens.

“Booterville still hasn’t reported any results,”

Frustrated news anchors from CNOX and FONN NEWS networks chimed in, saying in general –––

“Our experts say we should have heard from at least the smaller states by now.”

Booterville, however, wasn’t so much concerned with the rush. Ever the perfectionist, Earl spent twenty minutes on each ballot, inspecting signatures, verifying dates, and ensuring no Chad hung loosely from the corners.

Maude cross-referenced each voter’s name with meticulously kept records from her days as a librarian. She spent additional time knitting if any name seemed unfamiliar while contemplating its legitimacy.

By midnight, the panic had spread. Election officials from every state began ringing Booterville’s single landline, asking for updates. But halfway through her evening tea, Maude had turned off the ringer to avoid distractions. Earl had managed to count precisely 72 ballots.

By morning, networks were abuzz with speculation. Some suggested Earl and Maude were holding the election hostage, while others theorized a deep conspiracy in which Booterville’s hand-counting was a covert means of election tampering. In truth, Earl and Maude were simply slow workers.

As the days dragged on, Earl and Maude remained unphased. They didn’t own a television, and Maude had never been a radio fan. They were blissfully unaware that the world was falling apart outside of Booterville. Mass protests erupted in cities, with demands for transparency. Accusations flew between political parties.

In some corners of the internet, Booterville became a symbol of resilience; in others, it became a meme, representing all that was wrong with the electoral process.

Two weeks later, the National Guard arrived. They politely knocked on Earl and Maude’s door, requesting an update on the election. Maude, unperturbed, invited them in for tea and showed them the ballots neatly stacked in her living room. The guards, bewildered, nodded and promised to relay their findings back to the capital.

Finally, in mid-December, a breakthrough occurred. After endless negotiations, Booterville agreed to let nearby towns assist in the counting process. Volunteers, election experts, and even some former contestants from the chili cook-off converged on Booterville to save the election.

But even with the new help, it took another month before all the votes got tallied.

As Earl and Maude sat together on New Year’s Eve, looking out at the winter stars, Earl leaned back in his chair and said,

“You know, Maude, I think we’ve done a fine job. Every vote, fair and square.”

Maude, knitting a scarf with perfect stitches, smiled and nodded. They never knew their efforts had plunged the nation into one of the most prolonged and chaotic elections in history. But to them, it was just another quiet day in Booterville.

Earl did ask Maude,

“You know, in this day and age, you’d think they’d have computerized machines that could count these voting ballots in a much more accurate manner than the one everyone just went through. It might take a week or so, but they could tally all the votes with computers if everyone in the nation were to vote. Has anyone ever thought of that?”

Maude said,

“No, and if they did, some idiot would try to say they were stealing the election or something.”

Earl replied,

“Surely no one would believe something like that.”

Maude, rocking back and forth in her rocker, replied ––

“Well, they expected us to count every national vote by hand overnight, so that should tell you something about the people we are talking about.”

Earl just grumbled.

The End.

Fight Today For A Better Tomorrow – Saving America – Coming Home

BenjaminLeave a comment

A Report By: Benjamin Groff© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures

A Nation’s Call

It was the fall of 2024, and the country had never seemed more divided. Political upheaval had peaked, with protests echoing through city streets, harsh words hurled in homes, and debates erupting at family dinner tables. The election season had become more than just a contest of policies; it had morphed into a battle over the nation’s soul, pitting neighbor against neighbor.

At the heart of this turmoil was a young senator named Jacob Randall. A man of few words but deep conviction, he had saw firsthand the devastating effects of division. Randall had grown up in a small town where his mother and father, though from opposite sides of the political spectrum, had found common ground in their love for family, faith, and community. That shared foundation had always given him hope that unity was possible.

However, as he stood before Congress, he wondered if that hope had been misplaced. The chamber was restless, with representatives glaring at one another across the aisle, the tension palpable. Randall chose to speak at what many called a last-ditch effort—a desperate attempt to heal the nation before it tore apart.

Taking a deep breath, he began.

“Fellow citizens, colleagues, I stand before you not as a Democrat or a Republican but as an American. Our great nation is facing a challenge unlike any other. We have become so entrenched in our political camps that we no longer see each other as fellow countrymen. We see enemies where once we saw neighbors. And that division is killing the very fabric of our society.

“My parents did not always agree on politics. Mother was a staunch conservative, Father a proud progressive. But they understood something we have forgotten: that compromise is not a weakness but the cornerstone of democracy. They believed that every person, no matter how much they disagreed, had something valuable to contribute to the conversation.”

Randall’s words caught the attention of some. A few heads began to nod slowly. He pressed on, feeling the weight of the moment.

“Our founders, too, were divided. They had different visions for this country and ideas about what liberty and justice should look. Nevertheless, they knew that to create something lasting, they had to pull together to find common ground. And they did. That is the spirit that created America. Moreover, that is the spirit we need to rediscover today.”

As Randall continued, he saw a shift in the faces before him. Some were hard, unmoving, but others softened, listening with new ears. He was not offering easy solutions but calling for something more complicated: humility.

“When we look across the aisle, we must not see enemies but partners in this great American experiment. We have different ideas about achieving a better future, but we all want a better one. And if we cannot even agree on that, we have already lost.”

He paused, letting the gravity of his words settle in the room.

“In every crisis, there is opportunity, an opportunity to rise above the noise, the hatred, and the division. It is an opportunity to remember that we are bound together not just by the laws of this land but by the ideals it represents. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—for everyone. Not just for those who agree with us.”

Randall stepped away from the podium and glanced up at the gallery above. It was filled with citizens from across the country, watching with anxious eyes, waiting for anyone to bring clarity to the chaos. He saw young activists clutching signs, older veterans with tears in their eyes, and families holding hands.

“I am not asking you to abandon your beliefs. Listen to those who see the world differently. Not to argue but to understand a call for uniformity, but for unity because we cannot get found without uniting.”

The silence in the chamber was deafening. No one was shouting for the first time in what seemed like years. No one was trying to outdo the other with statistics or soundbites. They were listening.

Randall’s speech ended with a simple message: “America is not a perfect nation, but it is a nation built on the belief that we can pursue perfection together. Let us, as a people, return to that pursuit—not as adversaries, but as Americans.”

As he stepped away from the podium, the room erupted—not in protest, but in applause. Representatives stood on both sides of the aisle, clapping not just for Randall’s words but for what those words represented: a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, the country could pull itself back from the brink.

It would take work. It would not happen overnight. But in that moment, something had shifted. For the first time in a long time, there was a shared sense of purpose— a belief that even in the darkest of times, unity was possible—and that together, the nation could find its way back to the light.

A Lesson In History, For Today. A Letter From AN American – Heather Cox Richardson

BenjaminLeave a comment

Reposted By: Benjamin Groff© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures

On September 16, CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten wrote that while it’s “[p]retty clear that [Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala] Harris is ahead nationally right now… [h]er advantage in the battlegrounds is basically nil. Average it all, Harris’[s] chance of winning the popular vote is 70%. Her chance of winning the electoral college is 50%.” Two days later, on September 18, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) skipped votes in the Senate to travel to Nebraska, where he tried to convince state legislators to switch the state’s system of allotting electoral votes by district to a winner-take-all system. That effort so far appears unsuccessful. 

In a country of 50 states and Washington, D.C.—a country of more than 330 million people—presidential elections are decided in just a handful of states, and it is possible for someone who loses the popular vote to become president. We got to this place thanks to the Electoral College, and to two major changes made to it since the ratification of the Constitution. 

The men who debated how to elect a president in 1787 worried terribly about making sure there were hedges around the strong executive they were creating so that he could not become a king. 

Some of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted Congress to choose the president, but this horrified others who believed that a leader and Congress would collude to take over the government permanently. Others liked the idea of direct election of the president, but this worried delegates from smaller states, who thought that big states would simply be able to name their own favorite sons. It also worried those who pointed out that most voters would have no idea which were the leading men in other states, leaving a national institution, like the organization of Revolutionary War officers called the Society of the Cincinnati, the power to get its members to support their own leader, thus finding a different way to create a dictator. 

Ultimately, the framers came up with the election of a president by a group of men well known in their states but not currently office-holders, who would meet somewhere other than the seat of government and would disband as soon as the election was over. Each elector in this so-called Electoral College would cast two votes for president. The man with the most votes would be president, and the man with the second number of votes would be vice president (a system that the Twelfth Amendment ended in 1804). The number of electors would be equal to the number of senators and representatives allotted to each state in Congress. If no candidate earned a majority, the House of Representatives would choose the president, with each state delegation casting a single vote.

In the first two presidential elections—in 1788–1789 and 1792—none of this mattered very much, since the electors cast their ballots unanimously for George Washington. But when Washington stepped down, leaders of the newly formed political parties contended for the presidency. In the election of 1796, Federalist John Adams won, but Thomas Jefferson, who led the Democratic-Republicans (which were not the same as today’s Democrats or Republicans) was keenly aware that had Virginia given him all its electoral votes, rather than splitting them between him and Adams, he would have been president. 

On January 12, 1800, Jefferson wrote to the governor of Virginia, James Monroe, urging him to back a winner-take-all system that awarded all Virginia’s electoral votes to the person who won the majority of the vote in the state. He admitted that dividing electoral votes by district “would be more likely to be an exact representation of [voters’] diversified sentiments” but, defending his belief that he was the true popular choice in the country in 1796, said voting by districts “would give a result very different from what would be the sentiment of the whole people of the US. were they assembled together.” 

Virginia made the switch. Alarmed, the Federalists in Massachusetts followed suit to make sure Adams got all their votes, and by 1836, every state but South Carolina, where the legislature continued to choose electors until 1860, had switched to winner-take-all. 

This change horrified the so-called Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who worried that the new system would divide the nation geographically and encourage sectional tensions. He wrote in 1823 that voting by district, rather than winner-take-all, “was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted.” He proposed a constitutional amendment to end winner-take-all.

But almost immediately, the Electoral College caused a different crisis. In 1824, electors split their votes among four candidates—Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford—and none won a majority in the Electoral College. Although Jackson won the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, when the election went to the House, the state delegations chose Adams, the son of former president John Adams.

Furious Jackson supporters thought a developing elite had stolen the election, and after they elected Jackson outright in 1828, the new president on December 8, 1829, implored Congress to amend the Constitution to elect presidents by popular vote. “To the people belongs the right of electing their Chief Magistrate,” he wrote; “it was never designed that their choice should in any case be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges or…the House of Representatives.” 

Jackson warned that an election in the House could be corrupted by money or power or ignorance. He also warned that “under the present mode of election a minority may…elect a President,” and such a president could not claim legitimacy. He urged Congress “to amend our system that the office of Chief Magistrate may not be conferred upon any citizen but in pursuance of a fair expression of the will of the majority.”

But by the 1830s, the population of the North was exploding while the South’s was falling behind. The Constitution counted enslaved Americans as three fifths of a person for the purposes of representation, and direct election of the president would erase that advantage slave states had in the Electoral College. Their leaders were not about to throw that advantage away.

In 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery (except as punishment for a crime) and scratched out the three-fifths clause, meaning that after the 1870 census the southern states would have more power in the Electoral College than they did before the war. In 1876, Republicans lost the popular vote by about 250,000 votes out of 8.3 million cast, but kept control of the White House through the Electoral College. As Jackson had warned, furious Democrats threatened rebellion. They never considered Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, whom they called “Rutherfraud,” a legitimate president. 

In 1888 it happened again. Incumbent Democratic president Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes out of 11 million cast, but Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison took the White House thanks to the 36 electoral votes from New York, a state Harrison won by fewer than 15,000 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast. Once in office, he and his team set out to skew the Electoral College permanently in their favor. Over twelve months in 1889–1890, they added six new, sparsely populated states to the Union, splitting the territory of Dakota in two and adding North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming while cutting out New Mexico and Arizona, whose inhabitants they expected would vote for Democrats.

The twentieth century brought another wrench to the Electoral College. The growth of cities, made possible thanks to modern industry—including the steel that supported skyscrapers—and transportation and sanitation, created increasing population differences among the different states.

The Constitution’s framers worried that individual states might try to grab too much power in the House by creating dozens and dozens of congressional districts, so they specified that a district could not be smaller than 30,000 people. But they put no upper limit on district sizes. After the 1920 census revealed that urban Americans outnumbered rural Americans, the House in 1929 capped its numbers at 435 to keep power away from those urban dwellers, including immigrants, that lawmakers considered dangerous, thus skewing the Electoral College in favor of rural America. Today the average congressional district includes 761,169 individuals—more than the entire population of Wyoming, Vermont, or Alaska—which weakens the power of larger states.  

In the twenty-first century the earlier problems with the Electoral College have grown until they threaten to establish permanent minority rule. A Republican president hasn’t won the popular vote since voters reelected George W. Bush in 2004, when his popularity was high in the midst of a war. The last Republican who won the popular vote in a normal election cycle was Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988, 36 years and nine cycles ago. And yet, Republicans who lost the popular vote won in the Electoral College in 2000—George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, who won the popular vote by about a half a million votes—and in 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes but lost in the Electoral College to Donald Trump. 

In our history, four presidents—all Republicans—have lost the popular vote and won the White House through the Electoral College. Trump’s 2024 campaign strategy appears to be to do it again (or to create such chaos that the election goes to the House of Representatives, where there will likely be more Republican-dominated delegations than Democratic ones).

In the 2024 election, Trump has shown little interest in courting voters. Instead, the campaign has thrown its efforts into legal challenges to voting and, apparently, into eking out a win in the Electoral College. The number of electoral votes equals the number of senators and representatives to which each state is entitled (100 + 435) plus three electoral votes for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538. A winning candidate must get a majority of those votes: 270.

Winner-take-all means that presidential elections are won in so-called swing or battleground states. Those are states with election margins of less than 3 points, so close they could be won by either party. The patterns of 2020 suggest that the states most likely to be in contention in 2024 are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, although the Harris-Walz campaign has opened up the map, suggesting its internal numbers show that states like Florida might also be in contention. Candidates and their political action committees focus on those few swing states—touring, giving speeches and rallies, and pouring money into advertising and ground operations. 

But in 2024 there is a new wrinkle. The Constitution’s framers agreed on a census every ten years so that representation in Congress could be reapportioned according to demographic changes. As usual, the 2020 census shifted representation, and so the pathway to 270 electoral votes shifted slightly. Those shifts mean that it is possible the election will come down to one electoral vote. Awarding Trump the one electoral vote Nebraska is expected to deliver to Harris could be enough to keep her from becoming president.

Rather than trying to win a majority of voters, just 49 days before the presidential election, Trump supporters—including Senator Graham—are making a desperate effort to use the Electoral College to keep Harris from reaching the requisite 270 electoral votes to win. It is unusual for a senator from one state to interfere in the election processes in another state, but Graham similarly pressured officials in Georgia to swing the vote there toward Trump in 2020.

You can find more comments about this report and ones like it by clicking and visiting Heather Cox Richardson here!

“A Letter From An American!”

BenjaminLeave a comment

POSTED BY Benjamin Groff© GROFF MEDIA 2024© TRUTH ENDURES

Written By: Heather Cox Richardson

September 14, 2024

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.

— Heather Cox Richardson

Notes:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-told-bob-woodward-he-knew-february-covid-19-was-n1239658

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

Share

Heather Cox Richardson is an American historian. She is a professor of history at Boston College, where she teaches courses on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, the American West, and the Plains Indians.[1] She previously taught history at MIT and the University of Massachusetts Amherst.[2]

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 Arlington Cemetery: A Place of Solemnity and Reverence

BenjaminLeave a comment

A Few Words Written By Benjamin Groff© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures

It’s a stark reality that the respect owed to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation gets often overlooked during political and commercial events. A red, white, and blue flower bouquet, more fitting for a picnic table than a sacred resting place, laid at the headstone of a fallen hero is a painful reminder of this disrespect.

It’s crucial to understand that there’s a distinct time and place for honoring our heroes and a separate space for casual group photos. These two should never mix. It’s our responsibility, especially for those in influential positions like Donald Trump, to uphold this distinction.

Why Hasn’t Kamala Harris Delivered on Her Promises? It Is Simple -A Pip Squeak!

BenjaminLeave a comment

By: Benjamin Groff© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures

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.

A Unifying Vision in Glendale: Kamala Harris and Tim Walz Champion Bipartisan Cooperation at Campaign Rally

BenjaminLeave a comment

A Report By: Benjamin Groff© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures

Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures

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.

A News Report Waiting For Its Headline “Politicians Play With How Votes Get Certified!”

BenjaminLeave a comment

A Story By: Benjamin Groff© Groff Media 2024© Truth Endures

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.

Read the article that inspired this story. It is reality. We hope this story comes true. Sadly, it looks like it will become fiction. The originating news report may be found here!

The Last President: A Tale of Democracy’s Demise

BenjaminLeave a comment

The Last President

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.