~ Throughout history there have always been those who stood firm, and those who surrendered their principles for the sake of comfort or fear. Those who exchanged their standards out of weakness and bowed to a tyranny are rarely remembered among the notable. History tends to reserve that honor for those who stood their ground when it mattered most. ~ Benjamin Groff
Political Commentary
The Next Political Shift May Not Be Left or Right
Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures June 12, 2026
What if the biggest force in American politics isn’t ideology, but exhaustion?
Every election cycle seems to arrive with the promise that this one will finally settle things.
It never does.
The arguments continue. The accusations continue. The campaigns never seem to end.
And yet, beneath the daily headlines, another possibility may be emerging.
What if the next major political movement in America isn’t driven by the far left or the far right?
What if it is driven by people who are simply tired?
Tired of being angry.
Tired of being told to hate neighbors who vote differently.
Tired of waking up every morning to discover another crisis demanding immediate outrage.
For nearly a decade, American politics has been fueled by conflict. Political strategists understand something that television networks and social media platforms have learned as well: outrage captures attention.
Anger keeps viewers watching.
Fear keeps voters engaged.
Conflict generates clicks.
But there is evidence that many Americans may be reaching a saturation point.
Poll after poll has shown declining trust in institutions, political parties, media organizations, and government itself. Yet beneath that distrust may be something more important: a desire for normalcy.
History suggests that political pendulums rarely stop at the extremes.
Eventually voters begin looking for stability.
Not excitement.
Not revolution.
Not constant crisis.
Just stability.
The nation has seen similar periods before. Following years of upheaval, Americans have often sought leaders who promised calm rather than confrontation. Sometimes those leaders succeeded. Sometimes they did not. But the desire itself repeatedly emerged.
Could that happen again?
No one knows.
Political forecasting has become a risky business. Recent elections have repeatedly surprised experts from every perspective.
But one possibility seems worth considering.
The next political shift may not be a movement toward one party or another.
It may be a movement away from perpetual conflict.
Americans may begin rewarding candidates who spend less time attacking opponents and more time discussing solutions.
They may become less interested in political celebrities and more interested in competent managers.
They may become less concerned with winning arguments and more concerned with lowering costs, improving schools, strengthening infrastructure, and maintaining public safety.
If that happens, the political landscape could change rapidly.
Not because voters changed their beliefs.
But because they changed their priorities.
Perhaps the most important question facing the nation is not whether America will become more conservative or more progressive.
It may be whether Americans decide they are simply exhausted by the constant fight.
And if enough people reach that point, the next great political movement could be something surprisingly rare in modern politics:
A movement toward peace, practicality, and common ground.
The future remains uncertain.
But if history teaches anything, it is that voters eventually tire of turmoil.
The question is whether that moment is approaching once again.
Former Oklahoma City Acting Mayor Guy Liebmann Dies at 90
Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures June 10th, 2026
Former Oklahoma Acting Mayor Had Grit, And Determination. A Marine. A State Lawmaker. And A Family Man.
——–
Public Servant Helped Guide Oklahoma City Through a Time of Transition
Local news media in Oklahoma appears to have ignored the former city council member and acting mayor service.
Former Oklahoma City Mayor and Oklahoma State Representative Guy Hoyt Liebmann has passed away at the age of 90.
According to comments posted by citizens following his passing, concerns have been raised that local Oklahoma news media largely overlooked the public service of former Oklahoma City Council member and Acting Mayor Guy Liebmann.
Groff Media reviewed coverage from Oklahoma City’s three major television news outlets—News 9, KOCO 5, and KFOR—as well as Oklahoma’s largest newspaper, The Oklahoman. Aside from a death notice appearing in paid obituary advertising space, we found little or no reporting recognizing Liebmann’s years of service to Oklahoma City and the State of Oklahoma.
Whether this reflects changing news priorities or simply an oversight, it has prompted some residents to question why a public servant who devoted decades to civic leadership received so little attention from the institutions that regularly document the history of the community he served.
Unlike that situation. Groff Media will recognize the individual.
Liebmann died on June 8, 2026, leaving behind a legacy of public service that stretched from the Oklahoma City Council to the Oklahoma House of Representatives and included a brief but significant period as Oklahoma City’s acting mayor.
Born in Shawnee on April 27, 1936, Liebmann graduated from Oklahoma City’s Classen High School before earning a degree in business management from the University of Oklahoma. He later served as an officer in the United States Marine Corps before entering a successful career in real estate and investments.
Many Oklahomans may remember Liebmann best for his service on the Oklahoma City Council representing Ward 8. In November 2003, following the resignation of Mayor Kirk Humphreys, Liebmann was appointed acting mayor and guided the city until voters elected Mick Cornett in March 2004.
Though his time as mayor lasted only a few months, it came during an important chapter in Oklahoma City’s development. The city was continuing its transformation into a nationally recognized metropolitan area, and Liebmann helped provide stability during a period of leadership transition.
During his service on the council and as acting mayor, Liebmann worked with several important city organizations, including the Oklahoma City Water Trust, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds Trust.
After leaving City Hall, Liebmann continued his public service by representing House District 82 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 2005 through 2013.
His public career reflected a belief that local government matters. While many political careers are measured by headlines and controversy, Liebmann’s legacy was built largely through committee work, civic involvement, and a willingness to serve when called upon.
Today, Oklahoma City residents drive roads, utilize services, and enjoy civic improvements that were influenced by the efforts of countless local officials whose names rarely appear in history books. Guy Liebmann was one of those individuals.
As news of his passing spreads, Oklahomans have an opportunity to remember a generation of civic leaders who dedicated years of their lives to public service, often with little recognition beyond the communities they served.
Funeral arrangements have been entrusted to Smith & Kernke Funeral Directors in Oklahoma City. At the time of publication, the funeral home reported that memorial service details were still pending and would be announced when finalized.
Guy Liebmann was 90 years old.
Funeral services and memorial information can be found here.
Benjamin Groff II
Groff Media © Truth Endures
Today We Remember
When Does Opinion Become a Weapon Against a Business
© Benjamin H. Groff II — Truth Endures / benandsteve.com
June 6, 2026
The Cost of a Rumor
There was a time when if someone wanted to damage a business, they had to stand on a street corner and tell people not to shop there.
Today, all it takes is a social media account.
A single post can reach hundreds of thousands of people. A video can be shared across the country in hours. An accusation can become accepted as fact before anyone pauses to ask whether it is true.
That raises an important question:
When does criticism become defamation?
The question came to mind after reading reports about a recent social media campaign targeting Harley-Davidson.
For decades, Harley-Davidson has represented something uniquely American. Its motorcycles have become symbols of freedom, independence, veterans, road trips, and a culture that has existed for generations.
Yet over the past several weeks, social media influencers and political personalities began attacking the company, describing it as “woke,” “anti-American,” and even “gay.” At the same time, many of the same accounts were encouraging consumers to purchase motorcycles from a competing manufacturer, Indian Motorcycle. According to reporting by The Bulwark, numerous influencers appeared to be using remarkably similar talking points while simultaneously promoting Harley’s competitor. The article raised questions about whether the campaign was organic or coordinated. No evidence has publicly emerged proving who, if anyone, organized the effort.
What makes the situation unusual is that Harley-Davidson had already announced in 2024 that it had ended its DEI department and scaled back several diversity-related initiatives after previous criticism from activists. The company stated it no longer maintained a DEI function and would focus on growing motorcycling and serving its riding community.
Yet the attacks continued.
Whether readers agree or disagree with Harley-Davidson’s past decisions is not really the point.
The larger issue is what happens when public opinion is manufactured.
If a business actually engages in conduct that customers dislike, criticism is fair. Consumers have every right to spend their money where they choose.
But what if the accusations are exaggerated?
What if they are misleading?
What if they are completely false?
And what if someone is profiting from spreading those claims?
Those questions move beyond politics and into the realm of ethics.
Most Americans would likely agree that consumers deserve truthful information before making purchasing decisions. We expect truth in advertising. We expect products to perform as advertised. We expect companies not to deceive customers.
Should the same standard apply to people attempting to damage a company’s reputation?
American law has long protected free speech. It should.
But free speech and knowingly false statements have never been exactly the same thing. Businesses, like individuals, can suffer tremendous financial harm when false information spreads unchecked.
Imagine spending a lifetime building a company, employing thousands of workers, paying suppliers, supporting local communities, and creating a respected brand. Then one morning you discover strangers on the internet have decided to label your business with accusations that may bear little resemblance to reality.
The damage can be immediate.
Customers leave.
Sales decline.
Employees worry.
Investors react.
All because of something that may never have been true in the first place.
Social media has given every citizen a voice. That is one of the great achievements of the digital age.
But it has also created a world where rumors can travel farther than facts.
Perhaps the question facing America is not whether people should be allowed to criticize businesses.
Of course they should.
The real question is whether people who knowingly spread false information intended to harm a company should bear responsibility when real damage results.
That debate is likely to grow louder in the years ahead.
Because in today’s world, a rumor is no longer just a rumor.
It can become a weapon.
Closing Question
If someone intentionally spreads false information about a business for political, personal, or financial gain, should they be held responsible for the economic damage they cause?
THE BOTTOM LINE
If you hear information coming from someone. Especially a politician. Stop. Take it with a grain of salt. And then go do your own research. See if it is true. Don’t believe them when they tell you that everything you learn through research is false.
Thank you for visiting benandsteve.com TruthEndures
© Benjamin H. Groff II — Truth Endures / benandsteve.com
The Boys Who Believed They Were Saving the Future
Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026
June 1, 2026
A fading photograph of young World War II servicemen reminds us of a generation that believed sacrifice, truth, and unity could build a better America.
There is something haunting about old World War II photographs.
Not because of the uniforms.
Not because of the war itself. 
But because of the faces.
These were not old men yet. They were boys. Farm boys. Small-town boys. Sons of mechanics, barbers, school teachers, ranchers, and church-going mothers who watched them board trains with tears hidden behind forced smiles. They left behind dirt roads, harvest fields, Saturday night dances, and families who prayed every evening they might return home alive.
The young men in this photograph likely believed what millions of others believed at the time — that their sacrifices would permanently change the world for the better.
And for a long while, it seemed they had.
After the war came neighborhoods.
Factories.
Opportunity.
Families.
A belief in country.
A belief in community.
A belief that democracy and decency had survived one of mankind’s darkest moments.
UNITY!
Their generation became known as The Greatest Generation not because they claimed the title for themselves, but because those who followed saw what they endured and understood the price they paid.
They fought in freezing forests and burning deserts.
They crossed oceans knowing many beside them would never return.
Some came home carrying medals.
Others came home carrying nightmares they never spoke about.
Yet they built lives anyway.
They raised children to believe sacrifice mattered.
That honor mattered.
That truth mattered.
That America, despite its flaws, was worth protecting.
And now many of the things they stood for seem to be fading under the weight of division, political hatred, greed, and a society that often forgets what previous generations endured to preserve freedom in the first place.
The painful irony is this:
Many veterans spent the rest of their lives believing the nation had moved forward because of what they had done. Their families believed it too. Schools taught it. Communities honored it. Flags waved proudly for them every Memorial Day and Veterans Day.
But somewhere along the way, respect began giving way to mockery.
Service became politicized.
History became disposable.
Truth became negotiable.
The men in photographs like this never imagined a time when Americans would fight each other more fiercely than they once fought enemies overseas.
And yet here we are.
Still, perhaps their greatest lesson was never perfection.
Perhaps it was endurance.
Because those young men were not flawless heroes from a Hollywood script. They were ordinary people who answered extraordinary times with courage. They showed future generations that democracy survives only when people are willing to sacrifice something for others besides themselves.
Maybe that is the part we are in danger of losing.
Not the uniforms.
Not the medals.
But the willingness to place country, truth, and community ahead of ego.
These young faces remind us that history was once carried on the shoulders of boys who became men far too quickly. And whether we realize it or not, the world we inherited was purchased partly through their fear, their courage, and in many cases, their blood.
The question now is whether future generations will preserve what they believed they saved.
Look at today’s world and the flood of voices insisting that fairness is weakness. That the ideals generations of Americans once believed in were somehow a lie. We are told freedom was never real, truth no longer matters, institutions cannot be trusted, and even the information we rely upon each day is designed to deceive us. Fear, division, and suspicion are being sold as wisdom. History has shown us before where that road can lead. It is the kind of confusion and distrust that tyrants have always depended upon to weaken societies from within. And perhaps the greatest danger of all is that those carrying such messages rarely arrive wearing uniforms or waving flags of conquest. More often, they arrive disguised as certainty, outrage, and easy answers for the angry, the fearful, and the uninformed
Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026
When Truth Becomes Optional in Politics
Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026
May 31, 2026
From Arizona campaigns to national politics, voters are increasingly left trying to separate performance, outrage, and party loyalty from simple honesty.
I am having a difficult time deciding what to write about today, which honestly should not be the case. The political world alone provides enough material every hour to fill a newspaper from front page to back.
What continues to stand out to me is not simply disagreement between political parties, but the growing difficulty many candidates seem to have with remaining grounded in facts. In Arizona alone, voters have watched candidates within the same party question each other’s qualifications, attack one another’s credibility, and debate who is less suited for the office they seek.
At times it feels less like public service and more like political performance.
The larger problem may not even belong to one individual candidate. Modern campaigning has slowly evolved into a contest of slogans, outrage, and carefully packaged talking points designed more to energize loyal supporters than to inform undecided voters. Over time, repetition becomes accepted as truth simply because people hear it often enough.
That is not unique to Arizona. It has become part of the national political culture.
Years ago, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo delivered a speech to the Democratic National Convention emphasizing compassion, inclusion, and honesty in government. Whether people agreed with his politics or not, the message was centered around the belief that government should speak truthfully to the public and acknowledge the realities everyday Americans face.
Today, many voters from all sides often find themselves exhausted trying to separate fact from performance. Campaigns increasingly rely on emotional reaction, social media sound bites, and outrage-driven messaging because those methods attract attention faster than thoughtful discussion ever will.
When You Knew The Truth And It Was Obvious
The real danger in all of this is not simply that politicians stretch the truth. Politics has always involved persuasion. The danger comes when voters begin expecting exaggeration and no longer believe honesty is even possible from public officials. Once that happens, trust in the entire system begins to erode.
And perhaps that is the real story worth writing about today.