Antifa, short for “anti-fascist,” is a decentralized, far-left political movement that opposes fascism, racism, and other forms of far-right extremism.
It is not a single, unified organization with a national leader or headquarters. Rather, it is a loose network of autonomous local groups and individuals. They share a common ideology.
History
European origins: Modern anti-fascist movements have historical roots in early 20th-century Europe. Groups like Germany’s Antifaschistische Aktion fought against rising fascism and Nazism in the 1920s and 1930s.
American development: In the United States, groups like the Anti-Racist Action (ARA) influenced the modern movement in the 1980s. They confronted Neo-Nazi skinheads at punk rock concerts.
Resurgence: Antifa gained significant public attention and saw a revival in activity after the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This was especially true during clashes with far-right groups. These occurred at events like the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Beliefs and ideology
Anti-authoritarianism: Adherents subscribe to a range of left-wing views. These include anarchism, socialism, and communism. They hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist positions.
Direct action: The movement prioritizes direct action over electoral politics. They believe it is necessary to disrupt what they see as hateful and oppressive activities. These disruptions are crucial before such activities can grow.
Confrontation: Supporters believe that hate speech is not free speech and advocate for the active suppression of fascist organizing efforts.
Tactics
Antifa tactics range from nonviolent to militant and vary widely among autonomous groups.
Nonviolent techniques: These include community organizing, publicizing the activities of far-right groups (“doxing”), and distributing flyers.
Militant techniques: Some adherents use confrontational tactics, including physical violence and property damage, which critics condemn as counterproductive and dangerous.
“Black bloc”: During protests, some activists engage in “black bloc” tactics. They dress in all black with their faces covered. This is done to keep anonymity and solidarity.
Controversy and criticism
Terrorist label: For several years, President Donald Trump has said he would label Antifa as a terrorist organization. As recently as September 2025, he reiterated this stance. Still, legal and civil rights experts have stated such a designation would be unconstitutional. They argue it is challenging to apply to a decentralized movement rather than a structured group. Former FBI Director Christopher Wray has also described it as an ideology rather than an organization.
Use of violence: Antifa’s use of violence has been condemned by both Republican and Democratic politicians. Some critics draw false equivalencies between Antifa violence and far-right extremist violence.
Misinformation: The movement has often been the topic of persistent disinformation campaigns. Right-wing groups and social media accounts promote false rumors and hoaxes about its activities.
Right now in U.S. politics, “Antifa” is not a formal organization. Instead, it is a loosely applied label meaning “anti-fascist.” It refers to people who oppose far-right extremism. In recent years, some political figures have used the term as a catch-all. Donald Trump is included among those who use it this way. They apply it to anyone who protests or opposes their policies. That means the word is often used more as a political weapon than a precise description.
If someone opposes the GOP or criticizes Trump’s policies, that alone does not make them “Antifa.” Certain media outlets or political figures call them that. It’s a rhetorical strategy to stigmatize opposition. This labeling is not a reflection of an actual membership or affiliation. Historically, in the U.S., dissent against a party or president has always existed without being automatically labeled as extremist.
So, in short: at the “current rate” of framing, you are called Antifa if you oppose Trump. Nonetheless, that’s a label applied by others. It is not an actual classification or legal designation. It’s essential to recognize the difference between rhetoric and reality.
There is a quiet discussion about the concern. People are worried about the destruction of the structures at the Grand Canyon’s North Rim area. Especially if you mention whether Trump will arrange the sale of the property to an investor. Some prospective property companies are considering this, and they have shown interest in the area since it burned last week. The Sale Is –– Not Likely!
It’s doubtful that the U.S. government (i.e., the National Park Service, which manages Grand Canyon National Park) will sell off the burned North Rim properties to private investors. BUT there are always an exception!
“Selling the Canyon: What If the North Rim Was for Sale?”
Private investors will rebuild the lost structures by purchasing the property and assuming control of the North Rim. This would take the burden off the Federal Government. Additionally, it would bring a commercial attraction to the area, increasing yearly traffic compared to the current level.
We have seen with the Trump Administration that the members of his office do not adhere to general practices. These practices are important to ethical principles. They are not below ignoring court orders, laws, and regulations to do what they please. The Administration can obtain anything it asks for with the current House, Senate, and Supreme Court. If Trump asks for a clear title for the Grand Canyon Properties, he would get one. He wipes it from the National Historical Places Monuments list. He removes select pieces of property from the protections of the National Park System.
Don’t think he would, or should? Try stopping renaming a Military Base after a Civil War figure from the Confederacy. Try stopping a military parade on his birthday. Try stopping him from cutting medical insurance coverage for millions of Americans. Inform him that everyone is entitled to civil liberties and must be permitted due process through a legal hearing.
Then, say selling off property in a National Park will never happen. Many do not believe the House and Senate will support Trump’s actions. They will not give him the papers he needs. This includes doing what he wants with the smoldering remains of the North Rim. It also affects any National Park.
🇺🇸 Enter the Trump Administration
Federal law strictly prohibits the sale of national park lands. Nonetheless, recent administrations—especially under Donald Trump—have shown a willingness to test those boundaries. Presidential influence has set a precedent for reshaping public lands policy. Protections in Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante have been reduced. Formerly protected lands have been opened to oil and gas leases. The Trustee of the National Land and Parks Service will face a force from the Trump Administration. Survival is uncertain if Trump and Company aim to dismantle it.
Sources close to high-level real estate firms claim interest has spiked since the North Rim Lodge was destroyed. The timing has raised questions among environmentalists. They wonder if the destruction of federal structures paves the way. An administration unconcerned with precedent or preservation will try a land transfer.
🏛️ Legal Hurdles (and How They Might Be Circumvented)
Legally, the sale of Grand Canyon National Park land is almost impossible under existing statutes. Some fear the standard rules no longer apply. This fear arises from a cooperative Congress. Additionally, an activist Supreme Court and a President with a record of executive overreach contribute to this concern.
There are those close to the Canyon who are saying – “It’s unlikely, but not unimaginable. In 2020, no one thought sacred tribal lands would be opened to mining. Yet it happened. If political winds shift hard enough, even the Grand Canyon is not be safe from the bulldozer.”
Speaking for the Nay side.
Why a sale isn’t feasible:
There are several points to consider. These points explain why the sale of land owned by the Park Service would not transfer to private ownership. This is due to certain reasons and should be considered. Anyone wishing to ought to consider them further.
The North Rim Is Part of a National Park
The North Rim once included the Lodge, cabins, ranger headquarters, and other structures. It is now part of a federally protected unit of the National Park System. That land is held in trust for the public and can’t be sold or transferred to private ownership.
The area is of Historic and Cultural Significance (does it matter?)
The Grand Canyon Lodge was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1982. It was also listed on the National Register of Historic Places (1). Federal law prevents the disposal of such historic properties without a formal and rare delisting process—something that’s practically unheard of.
Park Policy and Public Trust Doctrine now objects to sale or misuse of property.
The NPS mission requires preserving federal land for future generations. Selling land—even after a disaster—is contrary to this mission and the principles of public trust.
Federal Law on Disposal (would have to be changed.)
Federal agencies must prove the land is excess under laws like the Property Act. The Federal Lands & Policy Management Act also requires this. They must prepare environmental assessments. Agencies must also undergo public notice and comment before any disposal occurs. That’s a lengthy, bureaucratic process—and it rarely results in the sale of park lands.
What’s likely to happen instead:
Reconstruction & Restoration
Park officials and the State of Arizona are more focused on fire investigation. Governor Katie Hobbs is pushing for accountability. There is emphasis on environmental remediation and rebuilding. The North Rim will be closed for the rest of the 2025 season (2).
Congressional/Agency Funding
Efforts now will center on securing federal and state funding to rebuild the Lodge, cabins, ranger facilities, and other infrastructure.
Fire Response Review
Investigations are underway into the decision to let the Dragon Bravo Fire burn before it exploded. Arizona’s government has demanded a thorough, independent review (3).
The burned structures are integral parts of Grand Canyon National Park—they’re not eligible for sale. Instead, the focus will be on recovery, restoration, and rebuilding what was lost, all within the park’s management framework.
Nevertheless, I reserve this statement. We have observed this with the Trump Administration. The members of his office do not adhere to general practices that are germane to ethical principles. They are not below ignoring court orders, laws, and regulations to do what they please. The current House and Senate, along with the Supreme Court, support the Administration. This means the Administration can obtain anything it asks for. If Trump asks for a clear title for the Grand Canyon Properties, he would get one.
Editor’s Note:
I’ve always had something like a sixth sense—premonitions, you can call them. Strangely, the ones I write about never seem to come true. It’s the ones I keep to myself that have a way of becoming reality. – Peace!
On July 17th, a report came out from an Arizona Television News Outlet. The report identified the location as GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, AZ (AZFamily). Arizona’s Family learned a crucial member of the crew was not called in promptly to help. The Dragon Bravo Fire blew up and burned dozens of buildings over the weekend.
As of Thursday, there is still no containment of the wildfire at the Grand Canyon’s North Rim. Six hundred firefighters are working to put out the flames. The wildfire has grown to more than 11,000 acres.
Meteorologists are key to fire management. The Dragon Bravo Fire didn’t have one on scene until Monday. This was several days after the damage was done.
It adds to concerns about how the fire was handled after being sparked by lightning on the Fourth of July. In this case, aside from the actual flames, the weather played a significant role in the destruction.
Strong winds blew up from within the canyon and fanned the flames. Crews on the ground didn’t have an incident meteorologist with them over the weekend. This expert have been capable of warn them ahead of time.
For days, the National Park Service took a “confine and contain” approach. They allowed flames to consume the underbrush. At the same time, they protected the structures within the national park. Nonetheless, that changed on July 11. Firefighters reported that “strong northwest wind gusts were uncommon to the area. These winds jumped multiple containment features.”
Ultimately, the result was more than 70 structures destroyed by flames, including the historic lodge.
The most significant cultural threat to occur in my lifetime is occurring as I write today. It deals with our nations stability. The threat to our democracy doesn’t come from a single event—it happens every day. It happens when we ignore what’s unfolding in our city councils, our state legislatures, and in the halls of Congress. It happens when we assume that honorable people are safeguarding our federal institutions.
That complacency is how we arrived at the crisis point we face in 2025.
In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon was implicated in one of the greatest political scandals in U.S. history: Watergate. His aides admitted to orchestrating a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. They attempted to steal information to sabotage a political opponent. The House of Representatives held impeachment hearings. Nixon was on the brink of being impeached. He resigned before the Senate took up the case. He was never prosecuted—pardoned instead by his successor, Gerald Ford. That decision set a precedent: presidents commit crimes without real consequence.
Had Nixon faced justice, we wouldn’t be watching the unraveling of the United States today. In 2025, we are witnessing a troubling surge of pro-white nationalist influence within our government. Supremacist ideologies are fueling misinformation campaigns and choking the truth that help heal and unite our country. This is one of the most perilous chapters in our nation’s history. It spells the end of the United States as we have known it.
Ulrich Groff I.
Ironically, the Groff family once fled an oppressive regime in the 1850s, seeking liberty and justice in America. Now, in a cruel twist of history, a direct descendant of Ulrich Groff I —faces a difficult consideration. Will he see himself returning to the very region his ancestors left in search of freedom. Or hope for a miracle. We must not allow the hard-won promises of our democracy to slip away through silence and inaction.
What the world—and especially the United States—needs now is love, sweet love. Not the kind that’s fleeting or sentimental. It should be the steady, courageous kind that listens more than it lectures. It seeks understanding over dominance. Our nation was once bound together by a shared belief in the promise of unity. Now, it is splintered by division. Mistrust and fear further divide us. Political rage, social distrust, and cultural isolation have made enemies of neighbors and strangers of friends.
But love, in its truest form, has the power to mend what anger tears apart. It begins with kindness in daily life—treating others with respect, even when they disagree with us. It grows in empathy—stepping into anothers shoes rather than judging them from afar. If we can choose love over fear, we can start to heal this fractured country. Hope must prevail over hate. Connection should be preferred over separation. This healing won’t happen overnight. It will occur heart by heart, one act at a time.
I received a question yesterday about the United States. They asked why so many people are up in arms over the current immigration raids taking place across the country. Especially after President Obama, during his term in office, removed over 3 million undocumented individuals. Many of whom they claimed never had a hearing.
I wanted to conduct some research to learn more about it for myself.
Understanding Immigration Enforcement: Obama vs. Trump
During his eight years in office (2009–2017), President Barack Obama led an administration that deported over 3 million noncitizens. These deportations were conducted through formal removal proceedings. A formal removal involves a legal process. This process results in a court order for deportation from the United States.
If we include “returns”, the total number of departures exceeds 5 million under the Obama administration. These returns are cases where individuals either voluntarily left the country or were denied entry at the border. They agreed to withdraw their application to enter. Many of those individuals were turned away at the border before ever entering the U.S. Because they were not formally admitted into the country, they were not entitled to a court hearing. These actions, while recorded as enforcement events, differ significantly from deportations after internal apprehensions.
It’s important to note that Obama’s enforcement focused heavily on border security. It prioritized the removal of individuals with serious criminal records. Despite this, he faced criticism from immigrant rights advocates for the high number of deportations. At the same time, Republicans attacked him for not doing enough to secure the border.
In contrast, the Trump administration adopted a far more aggressive and indiscriminate approach. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents under Trump routinely apprehended individuals from homes. They were also taken from workplaces, schools, churches, or even while walking with family. Many were detained without prompt access to legal counsel. They were transferred long distances from their communities. In some cases, they were deported without ever appearing before a judge. This represented a sharp departure from the enforcement priorities of earlier administrations.
It’s worth remembering that President Obama did not pursue mass interior deportations without due process. He implemented programs like DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). These programs offer relief to specific undocumented individuals who were brought to the U.S. as children.
Obama never had to use the military. He deported nearly 8 million non-documented individuals. This includes those he sent back and others never allowed in through customs at airports, ports of entry and borders. He used the border patrol and immigration officials on a budget provided by Congress. Trump has spent more on advertising. He talks about what he is going to do or what he has done. This spending is more than any earlier administration spent deporting a person. He has had to send in the National Guard and Marines. As of this report, 118 immigrants have been apprehended in Los Angeles. It is true they will not get a hearing if their incarceration follows the path of others.
I want to thank the person who asked to stay anonymous for bringing this issue to our attention. It’s vital to understand the differences in immigration enforcement approaches. While no administration is perfect, how a President handles immigration reflects not just policy but a nation’s values.
The recent rallies by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mark a defining moment in contemporary American politics. Across five rallies in three states, tens of thousands gathered. They made a resounding call for change. This signals widespread dissatisfaction with the current political and economic systems. The overwhelming attendance at these events reveals a deep-rooted movement. It is fueled by a demand for economic fairness. There is also a call for political integrity and grassroots-driven reform.
One of the key takeaways from these rallies is the rejection of Trumpism, oligarchy, and authoritarianism. The presence of thousands in North Las Vegas, Tempe, Greeley, Denver, and Tucson shows collective opposition to massive income inequality. Wealth inequality has left many working-class Americans behind. This movement directly responds to a political system. In this system, billionaires hold disproportionate power. They use their wealth to influence elections and dictate policy. The rallies were not simply campaign events; they were gatherings of individuals. They were determined to reclaim democracy from corporate interests. They also wanted to challenge political elites.
Moreover, the movement echoes historical struggles that have shaped the United States. Sanders draws parallels between this modern fight and past movements that have successfully challenged oppression. These include the abolitionist, labor, civil rights, and women’s rights movements. These historical precedents offer a blueprint for today’s progressive movement. They emphasize that real change arises when ordinary people organize. Real change occurs when they take action against systemic injustice.
A critical part of this movement is grassroots organization. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez stress the need to mobilize people in all 50 states through consistent engagement. Mobilizing thousands of people means not only attending rallies but also translating that enthusiasm into political action. Encouraging progressives to run for office at all levels is crucial. This includes positions from school boards to state legislatures. It is a core strategy to enact lasting change. Local elections, often overlooked in the national political discourse, hold immense power in shaping policies that affect daily life.
Additionally, the movement extends beyond electoral politics. It calls for strong communities where people support one another despite economic and social challenges. The emphasis on solidarity reflects the understanding that political change is inseparable from fostering a culture of mutual aid. It also involves building collective strength. The movement creates networks of engaged citizens. The goal is to counteract the feelings of loneliness that many experience in today’s economic landscape. It also addresses feelings of helplessness.
This movement does not overstate the urgency. Sanders highlights the significance of this moment not only for current generations but also for future ones. Climate change, economic disparity, and political corruption are existential issues that need immediate action. The message is clear: now is the time for mobilization, not despair. The fight for a fair and just society depends on ordinary people. They must be willing to challenge entrenched power structures. They must demand a system that works for all.
Arizona, Nevada, Colorado,
In conclusion, the rallies held across Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado exemplify the strength of a growing progressive movement in America. The record-breaking turnouts illustrate a profound discontent with the status quo and a wish for systemic change. By organizing, running for office, and building community solidarity, this movement can redefine the future of American democracy. The path ahead is not easy. History has shown that when people unite for justice, they can overcome even the most powerful obstacles.
Former President Jimmy Carter’s state funeral was held today at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., honoring his legacy as the 39th President of the United States and his extensive humanitarian work. Carter passed away on December 29, 2024, at the age of 100. He was remembered by dignitaries, family, and friends for his dedication to public service. He also made significant global peace efforts.
President Joe Biden delivered an emotional eulogy, highlighting Carter’s unwavering character and lifelong commitment to improving the lives of others. Biden was one of the first senators to endorse Carter’s presidential candidacy. He reflected on their shared values. Carter had a profound impact on the nation. CBS News
All five living U.S. presidents attended the service, including President-elect Donald Trump, who will be inaugurated on January 20, 2025. Trump engaged in a brief but cordial conversation with former President Barack Obama. This marked a rare moment of civility between the two. Reuters
The ceremony featured heartfelt tributes from Carter’s family. His grandson, Jason Carter, praised him as the nation’s “first Millennial,” acknowledging his progressive-thinking approach and enduring legacy. The Sun
Steven Ford, son of the late President Gerald Ford, read his father’s letter for Carter. This action underscored the deep friendship between the two men despite their political rivalry. New York Post
Musical performances added to the solemnity of the occasion. Phyllis Adams, a longtime Delta flight attendant, had earlier performed for the Carters. She delivered a moving rendition of “Amazing Grace.” This fulfilled a special demand made by the late President. CBS News
Security measures were notably heightened for the event, reflecting concerns over potential threats. Despite this, the service proceeded without incident, allowing attendees to focus on honoring Carter’s life and legacy. The Sun
Carter’s remains will be transported to his hometown of Plains, Georgia, after the national ceremony. There, a private service and burial will be held according to his wishes. The Times
From 1977 to 1981, Carter’s presidency was marked by significant achievements. These included the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt. They also involved the establishment of diplomatic relations with China. His post-presidential years were equally impactful. He dedicated himself to human rights and diplomacy. This dedication earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. The Times
The state funeral poignantly reminded us of Carter’s enduring contributions to the nation and the world. It celebrated a life dedicated to service, peace, and the betterment of humanity.
Nearly half of Americans who cast ballots in the November 5, 2024, Presidential Election voted for Kamala Harris; the other half for Donald Trump.
At this stage, it’s less about who supported whom and more about what lies ahead. If Trump follows through on his campaign promises, there could be significant changes in government agencies, which might affect the benefits that many Americans depend on. He has openly vowed to bring retribution against those he views as adversaries—potentially including the half of the nation that didn’t vote for him. However, it’s also important to note that not all of his promises may come to fruition, and the political system has checks and balances to prevent extreme actions.
Federal law enforcement agencies involved in national security and other branches focused on homeland security could be dissolved. Trump has publicly stated his intent to dismantle these institutions.
Social programs for adults, older people, and those with disabilities—such as food assistance, school aid, healthcare, and Social Security—are likely to face drastic cuts, potentially leaving them virtually ineffective for those in need. He has said as much.
LGBTQI+ rights and protections are also under threat, as outlined in Project 2025, a policy initiative he supports. If you think this won’t materialize, consider the promises already laid out. The next four years will show us the reality.
If Trump appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to oversee public health, as he has suggested, food and drug safety regulations could be gutted. Protections that ensure safe food, medications, and clean drinking water could be stripped away, leading to significant health risks.
Trump is likely to have the backing of a Republican-controlled House and Senate. New laws and repeals may come as swiftly and forcefully as debris in a tornado. The U.S. could change drastically, and not only non-supporters would feel the impact—Trump supporters, too, could face serious, unforeseen consequences.
Expect an economic downturn as average Americans encounter hardships unprecedented in recent history. As with the COVID-19 crisis, another wave of upheaval may follow. Trump’s track record shows a tendency for crises, particularly in ventures he leads. The economic future under his leadership looks bleak.
What You Can Do
HOARD – Stock up on canned goods and cash reserves outside traditional banking institutions. Prepare for potential utility outages and find ways to stay connected without reliance on cell phones or computers. Secure a supply of both drinking and non-drinking water to meet various needs.
PROTECT – Prioritize security measures for yourself, your home, and your property, particularly those independent of electricity. Stock up on self-defense tools like bear spray or mace. Ensure that your home’s locks are strong both inside and out. In the event of an intruder, remember: in a fight for survival, any measure is justifiable. There are no rules when fighting for your life. Anything is fair!
These are just a few preparations to consider. With the current political landscape in both Houses and the Supreme Court tilted in Trump’s favor, our democratic processes could be at risk. This election may mark our last chance to elect our President—and our future as a democracy. It’s critical to stay informed, engage in the political process, and support organizations that defend democratic values. Together, we can make a difference.
“Make America Great Again,” popularized as a political slogan, has become highly polarizing. To supporters, it often symbolizes a call to return to a time of perceived economic strength, national pride, and social stability. However, for many others, it has come to signify a darker undertone: a desire to revert to an era when certain marginalized groups—such as African Americans, LGBTQ+ individuals, Jewish people, Hispanics, and other minorities—lacked complete protection under the law.
The Historical and Social Context
The slogan evokes an ambiguous sense of “greatness,” sparking questions of when America was indeed “great” and for whom. Many point to the slogan as a reference to a mid-20th century America, a period before civil rights advancements began to reshape the nation’s legal and social landscape. This era, regardless of its association with post-war prosperity and expanding economic opportunity, was also marked by segregation, widespread discrimination, and limited civil rights protections for racial and ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Civil rights legislation and landmark court decisions have progressively addressed these disparities in the past fifty years. The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act represent some of the significant strides made in affording marginalized groups equal rights and protection under the law. Critics argue that calling for a return to pre-1960s values implies a desire to dismantle some of these protections and regain a hierarchical social order that was deeply exclusionary.
Perceptions of “Make America Great Again” in Modern Discourse
The MAGA slogan is seen by many as a coded message suggesting that the progress made by minorities threatens traditional values or destabilizes society. Rhetoric often associated with the slogan—such as fear of “radical left” agendas, immigration restrictions, and questioning of affirmative action—has exacerbated this perception. For example, according to surveys and sociopolitical analyses, minority groups and their advocates often interpret the slogan as a form of resistance against multiculturalism and diversity. This view became reinforced by incidents in which white nationalist groups appropriated the slogan to promote exclusionary ideologies.
Discrimination and Political Messaging
Political messaging using the phrase has stirred debates over whether it subtly promotes a return to exclusive societal norms. Advocacy groups for racial, ethnic, and LGBTQ+ rights warn that MAGA rhetoric has indirectly contributed to policy decisions that undermine or reverse hard-won civil liberties, such as efforts to restrict voting access, challenge affirmative action, limit LGBTQ+ protections, and enact immigration controls targeting specific nationalities or religions.
Conclusion
The “Make America Great Again” slogan has thus come to represent more than a call for economic or national rejuvenation; it embodies a divisive struggle over America’s values and the inclusivity of its future. For critics, it suggests a rollback on the inclusivity and rights advancements achieved over the past five decades. It serves as a reminder that the interpretation of slogans in political discourse can carry implicit biases and, in doing so, perpetuate exclusionary beliefs that impact marginalized communities.
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.
Information Produced and Presented By Organizations Other Than Groff Media 2024
Above, two-time Academy Award nominee Marshall Curry presents A Night at The Garden, a film that revisits a night in February 1939 when “20,000 Americans rallied in New York’s Madison Square Garden to celebrate the rise of Nazism — an event largely forgotten from U.S. history.” As we described it back in 2017, the film documents the following scene:
What you’re looking at is the 1939 “Pro-American Rally” (aka Pro-Nazi Rally) sponsored by the German American Bund at Madison Square Garden on George Washington’s 207th Birthday. Banners emblazoned with such slogans as “Stop Jewish Domination of Christian Americans,” “Wake Up America. Smash Jewish Communism,” and “1,000,000 Bund Members by 1940” decorated the great hall.
New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia—an Episcopalian with a Jewish mother—considered canceling the event, but ultimately he, along with the American Jewish Committee and the American Civil Liberties Committee decreed that the Bund was exercising its right to free speech and free assembly.
A crowd of 20,000 filled the famous sports venue in mid-town Manhattan to capacity. 1,500 police officers were present to render the Garden “a fortress impregnable to anti-Nazis.” An estimated 100,000 counter-demonstrators were gathering outside.…
The most disturbing moment in the short film comes at the 3:50 mark, when another security force—the Bund’s Ordnungsdienst or “Order Service” pile on Isidore Greenbaum, a 26-year-old Jewish worker who rushed the podium where bundesführerFritz Julius Kuhn was fanning the flames of hatred. Valentine’s men eventually pulled them off, just barely managing to save the “anti-Nazi” from the vicious beating he was undergoing.
Made entirely from archival footage filmed that night, A Night at The Garden “transports audiences to this chilling gathering and shines a light on the power of demagoguery and anti-Semitism in the United States.” You can learn more about the film and the 1939 rally at Marshall Curry’s web site.
Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or other xenophobic rallies being held this weekend in Madison Square Garden is purely coincidental, of course.
MAGA Is Not The First To Attempt And Bring Down America. A Populist Movement Nearly Destroyed American Democracy Over 110 Years Ago, But Our Democracy Prevailed
Over a century ago, the United States grappled with a political movement that closely resembled 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 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 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 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 institutions enabling democracy to function. History teaches us that democracy’s survival depends on our ability to balance widespread anger with reasoned leadership and respect for the rule of law. We all have a role to play in this ongoing struggle, and our vigilance is required to maintain a true Republic of the People!
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.”
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.
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.
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!
Joe Biden has taken 382 vacation days off to date. That equates to over one full year on vacation out of 3 years as US president. Is he the most ineffective US president in history?
Answered by Benjamin via benandsteve.com
We take your word it was 382. I need President Biden’s schedule to confirm such details. Since the job is 24/7, 365 days a year, you never have any privacy, nor a day without less than twenty interruptions, even when on vacation. The vacation days alone don’t necessarily reflect a president’s effort. Being president is a demanding job that comes with its own set of challenges and responsibilities. While the president must take breaks and maintain a work-life balance, one should consider the number of vacation days in the broader context of one president over another president’s performance, decision-making, and leadership.
Every presidency has challenges and circumstances, and comparing one president’s vacation days to another does not give a comprehensive view of their effectiveness. When evaluating a presidency’s effectiveness, it’s also essential to consider the accomplishments, policies enacted, and challenges faced.
The information provided may be more accurate or presented better to portray a specific narrative. It’s always a good idea to fact-check information and consider multiple perspectives before forming an opinion.
For a fact, here’s what Biden didn’t do:
He never only started his work days around 11 am or 11:3AM, crisis or not.
Never made an ass out of himself on a global stage.
Never has had disregards to promises made during his campaign.
He Never has been impeached.
Biden didn’t get impeached a second time.
Biden never had to survive a Senate trial that most senators later – admit that they should’ve voted and should’ve been guilty.
Biden didn’t get indicted – FOUR TIMES.
It wasn’t Biden who tried overturning the People’s Will in the 2020 *Election by inciting an insurrection!
No Biden didn’t call the Georgia Secretary of State and attempt to *Strong arm him into creating 12,000 more votes in his favor.
Biden didn’t take papers from the national archives and refuse to return them to the United States Government. Going as far as to tell employees to hide the location of the boxes that contained them from authorities. Then, he agreed to return them and never did so. Then, having the stated allegations recorded on the video camera and denying it was real, lying to the FBI (also a crime.)
The list of things President Biden never did could go on, but it would be easier if you tuned into Court TV Monday through Friday.
Those are the differences you can make between Biden and Trump, which is just the start!
Indeed, the economic conditions at the end of Trump’s term were challenging due to the pandemic, and Biden inherited an economy facing significant headwinds. The pandemic’s impact on the economy was unprecedented, affecting employment, consumption, and global demand.
However, public perception and political narratives often prioritize certain aspects of an administration’s performance while downplaying others. People’s opinions become shaped by various factors, including media coverage, partisan affiliation, personal experiences, and messaging from political leaders.
Trump had shut down the United States of America, a fact that nearly every American forgets today. They need to remember the closed stores, the empty shelves, the closed restaurants, the doctor’s office that had to refuse patients, hospitals that were so full no one could visit, and nursing homes where loved ones had to stand outside and wave to loved ones from the street, and Funeral Homes so full they were using rental refrigerator trucks to store bodies—the toilet paper shortages. That was Trump’s Administration. Biden had to clean it up. He received much blame for what must occur to get the nation back on track. But he got to work, and the country got back to life.
Here are a few points to consider when thinking about why public opinion might differ between Trump and Biden regarding the economy:
Partisan Bias: Political affiliations can heavily influence people’s views on the economy. Republicans may be more inclined to credit Trump for positive economic developments during his term and blame external factors like the pandemic for any downturns. Conversely, Democrats may be more critical of Trump’s handling of the economy and more forgiving of the challenges Biden faced upon taking office.
Messaging and Framing: Political leaders and media outlets shape public opinion. How economic data and policies get reported can influence people’s perceptions of the economy’s performance. Trump was known for touting positive economic indicators during his term, influencing public perception despite the broader challenges.
Another significant factor that shapes public opinion on the economy is personal experience. People’s direct economic situations, such as job loss, financial hardship, or financial gains, can profoundly impact their views. For instance, someone who experienced a job loss or financial hardship during Trump’s term might have a negative view of his economic policies. Conversely, if someone benefited from tax cuts or saw their investments grow, they might have a more positive perception. Complexity of Economic Issues: Economic conditions are influenced by a multitude of factors, including global trends, monetary policy, fiscal policy, and more. It can be challenging for the average person to parse through these complexities and assign credit or blame to a particular administration accurately.
In conclusion, public opinion on the economy is multifaceted, and partisan biases could dominate messaging, personal experiences, and the complexity of economic issues. While the data presented paints a challenging economic picture at the end of Trump’s term, public perception is by broader factors. And it is conveniently forgotten!
Billy Idol was doing a cover of “Mony Mony“…a song written and performed originally by Tommy James and the Shondells in 1968. The meaning of MonyMony is simply…Mutual of New York Insurance Company. M-O-N-Y.
Tommy James explained in an interview: “Originally, we did the track without a song. And the idea was to create a party rock record; in 1968 that was pretty much of a throwback to the early ’60s. Nobody was making party rock records really in 1968, those big-drum-California-sun-what-I-sing-money-type songs. And so I wanted to do a party rock record.
And we went in the studio, and we pasted this thing together out of drums here, and a guitar riff here. It was called sound surgery, and we finally put it together in probably a month. We had most of the words to the song, but we still had no title. And it’s just driving us nuts, because we’re looking for like a ‘Sloopy’ or some crazy name – it had to be a two-syllable girl’s name that was memorable and silly and kind of stupid sounding. So we knew what kind of a word we had, it’s just that everything we came up with sounded so bad. So Ritchie Cordell, my songwriting partner and I, are up in my apartment up at 888 Eighth Avenue in New York. And finally we get disgusted, we throw our guitars down, we go out on the terrace, we light up a cigarette, and we look up into the sky. And the first thing our eyes fall on is the Mutual of New York Insurance Company. M-O-N-Y. True story. With a dollar sign in the middle of the O, and it gave you the time and the temperature.
I had looked at this thing for years, and it was sitting there looking me right in the face. We saw this at the same time, and we both just started laughing. We said, ‘That’s perfect! What could be more perfect than that?’ Mony, M-O-N-Y, Mutual of New York. And so we must have laughed for about ten minutes, and that became the title of the song.”
The Story Of My Grandparents May Hold Guiding Strengths For Us Today
(gifted clock)
The story of my grandparents’ union goes back to August 10th, 1910. They wed on the Caddo and Washita County Line near where SH-152 is today, West of Cobb Creek. On that day, my grandfather, Benjamin Harrison Groff I., known as “Pop,” and my grandmother, Florence Lula McElroy, known as “Mom,” received a clock from Pop’s brother-in-law and sister, John and Laura Alice Groff Dowty. A piece of further history, Pop’s father was born in Switzerland, and Mom’s Father came into the world in Louisianna before its statehood.
It was in 1908 that Florence traveled with some of her siblings to the area to visit her brother Jim, who had married into the McLemore family. While visiting, she met Benjamin and fell in love; in those days, Ben was to ask her father for a hand in marriage before asking the bride. But Florence’s father was in that 3-state area of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas and unable to travel due to his age. Economically, the to-be groom could not travel to the area. So, the agreement was that the bride’s oldest brother, John, would come to Eakly and consider Benjamin’s request for her hand in marriage. And John rode a horse from far southeast Oklahoma to Eakly, Oklahoma, for the request. The answer must have been yes because they wed.
Mom’s family lived in Southwest Arkansas, Southeast Oklahoma, and parts of Northeast Texas. They were within rock-throwing distance, and they never knew which state they were in. Her father was a Baptist preacher who led a fire and brimstone ministry and led by strict rule. He had fought in the Civil War, but on which side I never knew. The only answer I ever got was, “he fought on the right side.” There were twelve kids in the McElroy family. Some of them were dead by old age when I was born in 1963.
Groff BARN
The Groff family migrated from Illinois, where Pop’s father was a farmer. He was known for having a huge barn in the community. It is one of the only to have been built by his sons and stands without a single piece of iron or nail. The Groff Barn built by Ulrich Groff and his sons remained put together using carpentry skills Ulrich Groff’s father taught him from the old land as late as 2000.
Above a rowdy bunch together the Groff Brothers who built the all wood barn in Illinois, in the 1800s.
OTIS GROFF
in 1905 two sons, Otis and Benjamin, took advantage of the opening of land in Oklahoma and claimed property west of Cobb Creek, north of SH-152 and Highway 58. It was then known as 41 Highway and Alfalfa Road. The brothers built two homes; Benjamin’s was on the property where, over sixty-five years later, the baseball player from Eakly, Michael Moore, and his family would live. It is the same home where the couple, Mom and Pop, would later raise three children and adopt another unofficially, taking in others in need. The father of the boys, Ulrich, came to Oklahoma, but word was he was afraid of being attacked by Indians, so he went back to Illinois.
(Mom & Pop Wedding Day)
On the day of their wedding, sitting in a buggy along a dirt road west of Cobb Creek, a photographer was on hand to record an image of the couple, and then John Dowty handed them a new clock he had bought from a hardware store in Eakly. To keep their love from running out of time. The clock remained in their home, ticking every day since.
The couple had three children: Bennie Ulridge, Dortha Eliouse, and JD.
JD GROFF 14YOA. 1936
My dad, JD, is named after John Dowty. But the Mom and Pop wished to honor a man known as either Big John Dowty or Uncle John Dowty by using just the two initials, without an abbreviation. It sometimes appeared as a curse for my dad because he would go through life telling people who placed periods with J and D that they had incorrectly spelled his name. I have heard him say, “It’s two letters, and you mess it up!”
Ben H. ‘Pop’ Groff I
The Clock: Even after retiring from their farm and moving to town, they took the clock, which remained essential to their lives. It remained running, being cleaned at a clock repair once, only when Mom and Pop watched over the repair man like hawks. When they passed, it came to my parent’s home, where it sat on the fireplace mantel and went silent. When the day came for our family to sell our homeplace, I retrieved the clock and brought it to Arizona. My first task was to clean it. It keeps time great. It is picky and must be balanced, and its ticker has to be ‘set’ at just the right spot, or it will stop. It is picky about the key turning the spring up tight. The springs are old. So it is like an old violin and has to be handled with kid gloves. The wood is brittle and old, and the design is very ornate. It may not be to the liking of every modern setting. But, it is over one hundred years old and dear. And it holds many hours of memories of sitting at my grandparents, hearing its tick-tock, listening to their stories, worries, and hopes for the day.
Mom & Pop Groff
The older people were our glue. They would hold yearly family reunions after the harvest had ended. Celebrate every holiday grandly and make weekends and summers the most incredible escapes. Plus, they oozed with class and style. The character and morals they possessed are qualities sorely missed and that are needed today as we try to soar in this world of divided opinions.
When Good Guys And Gals Still Finished First. They Were Made To.
JD Groff & his Horse My Molly’s Reed
My dad was known for doing such things unselfishly. He had a reputation throughout Western Oklahoma as a trustworthy horseman and businessman. I found this article while going through clippings. I discovered that it had been stored in an attic at my parent’s home after my mother sold it to move in with relatives due to her age. I was born in 1963 and have never heard this story. I had listened to my grandmother speak of a story in national newspapers about my dad helping a man, but I thought it had something to do with his being in World War II. He never spoke much of the past and only looked to the future. Something that I became used to and have often found myself doing until I found boxes of memories that took me into the lives of my parents and grandparents and a life that I am proud of bragging about.
(The following piece was first presented on Quora when a question was poised by a Trump supporter.)
I’m a little perplexed by your attitude here – why does it need to be so adversarial?
Let’s be straight here, though: Democrats don’t want to stop you voting for whoever you please. That’s the nature of a democracy: everybody gets a voice, and you can use that voice as you see fit. If you want to vote for Donald Trump, go right ahead – just know that you’re telling us quite a bit about yourself when you make that choice, and it’s not a positive one.
This is the part, I suspect, that some Republicans don’t understand. Democrats largely wouldn’t want to stop you from voting, although we can’t say the same for Republicans, because they do want to stop people voting, judging by all the state-level attempts at voter suppression. What we want is for you to stop making such god-awful decisions when you do vote. We want you to pick someone that raises your aspirations and wants something better for you, rather than the lowest common denominator.
We get it: you want to “own the libs”, and you want someone that will aggressively go after those people who don’t agree with you. I can understand that: you guys don’t like your lifestyle or beliefs being challenged, and when you feel that way, you probably feel under threat, and the response some will take in that situation is to lash out. You’re letting people like Donald Trump do that on your behalf.
Problem is, when you make decisions like that, you’re only thinking about yourself or your local bubble, rather than what’s best for everyone. The United States isn’t a religious, social or political monoculture: it’s an inclusive society that has a diverse range of beliefs, opinions and choices. Any effective government exists not to promote just the well-being of a single group (e.g. white ‘conservative’ Christians), but rather to promote what’s best for everybody.
Your choices aren’t something I’d consider laudable: I won’t stop you making them, because you have to let people make mistakes in order to learn from them. But you’re out of your mind if you don’t think I won’t advocate better choices, or at least encourage you to see your mistakes for what they are.
So, by all means, vote for Donald Trump if you must, but recognise that I’ll disagree with your choice, and encourage you to make better ones. When I look at who to vote for, I’ll always aim for the person who has higher aspirations for the country, for who has a clear desire to break past partisan bickering and legislative logjam, and aim to do what’s best for everyone, including you. You and I both know that Donald Trump is mostly out there to do what’s best for himself, and that you’re okay with that provided he hurts those you don’t agree with.
Just remember that these things have a way of backfiring. You put an aggressive, adversarial and ignorant President into office, particularly one known for cheating, philandering and lying his ass off, and it’s only a matter of time before he turns against you, particularly if he doesn’t feel the need for you anymore.
I think you can do better. Actually, I think you must do better. That’s what being a “true American” is all about, after all: striving towards something that was better than what came before it. It’s rather worrying that too many Americans have forgotten that.
BENANDSTEVEDOTCOM THE INSTAGRAM.COM PAGE
INFORMATION AND MORE THAT MAY BE USEFUL IN DAILY LIFE.
benandsteve.com 