Acton Institute speaker acts as an apologist for war criminal and agent of global capitalism, John Foster Dulles
One week ago, the Acton Institute hosted a luncheon lecture entitled, John Foster Dulles: Faith, Freedom, and the Cold War Architect. The presentation was presented by John D. Wilsey, a professor and author of several books and an Affiliate Scholar in Theology and History at the Acton Institute.
Wilsey’s comments were that of a most academics, since the presentation was not that engaging, but also because the professor acted primarily as an apologist for the former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. Wilsey made the claim that as Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles was primarily interested in the “containment of Communism.” And why such a statement is true, it does not pain the whole picture of who Dulles was and what role he played in furthering US imperialism.
The Acton Institute presenter acknowledged that John Foster Dulles and his brother Avery Dulles, had some dealings with Germans who were part of the Nazi Party. Wilsey even included a few pictures, but Wilsey said it was ridiculous for historians to suggest that the Dulles brother collaborated in any way with the Nazis.
My own reading of the Dulles brothers would challenge Wilsey’s claims. The Dulles brothers were lawyers and worked for the very influential law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. In Christopher Simpson’s book, The Splendid Blonde Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Simpson asserts that John Foster Dulles played a key role as it relates to Germany just after WWI had ended and during the time of Nazi control. First, while Dulles was acting a a US government representative, Simpson states, “Dulles favored restricting the definition of war crimes to greatest degree possible, then limiting the defeated powers’ obligation to pay reparations to those few cases that had been successfully prosecuted.”
The other major role that John Foster Dulles played, while working for the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, was to help broker massive investments in Germany on behalf of major US corporate interests. According to Simpson, these investments totaled over $1 billion in the late 1920s and were key investments in industries that were particularly profitable in the Nazi war machine, like IG Farben.
John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, was a main player in the US effort to recruit numerous Nazi high ranking officers to come to the US and assist the US government and the newly created CIA to assist the US during the Cold War.
Because of the relationships that both of the Dulles brothers had developed from the 1920s through the early 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower appointed both of them to his cabinet when he took the office at the beginning of 1953. Allen Dulles became the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and John Foster Dulles became Eisenhower’s Secretary of State. It is during their 8 years as part of the Eisenhower administration that both of the Dulles brothers played an even larger role in expanding US global imperialism.
In 1953, after the government of Iran had nationalized their oil, the US became increasingly concerned with what inside planners (like Dulles) referred to as Arab Nationalism in the Middle East. The US would not tolerate Iran’s nationalizing of their oil, which prompted John Foster Dulles to say, “this is how we get rid of that madman Mossadegh.” Dulles was referring to the CIA orchestrated coup, which removed Mossadegh from power and put the despot Shah in power.
Less than one year later, the Dulles brothers were at it again, this time orchestrating a CIA coup in Guatemala in 1954 on the behest of the United Fruit Company. What made this particularly insidious was the fact that not only did the United Fruit Company use the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell (where the Dulles brothers used to work), but that the Dulles brothers directly represented the United Fruit Company while working for Sullivan & Cromwell.
The CIA coup in Guatemala was particularly problematic, since it solidified the right wing power structure in that country, which led to genocidal policies against the indigenous population and maintained a massive wealth gap that plagues Guatemala even up to the present day.
John Foster Dulles also played a key role in making sure that the US would not support Ho Chi Minh, despite Minh’s efforts to gain US diplomatic support against the French occupation of Vietnam. Before Dulles died in 1959, he would also influence the US antagonism directed at the Egyptian leader Nassar and the Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro. (see Stephen Kinzer’s book, The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Avery Dulles, and Their Secret World War)
Many of us have been conditioned to believe that US policy between WWII and the collapse of the Soviet Union was a nobel endeavor. However, the amount of suffering and oppression that the US caused during those years was unimaginable. John Foster Dulles, along with his brother Allen, would be considered as war criminals for the roles they played the violence of US policy, especially during their time as Secretary of State and Director of the CIA. We should never forget that, even when the Acton Institute presenter claims that John Foster was a man of faith and deep conviction.
Will the new AmplifyGR Director of Economic Opportunities assist residents to create unions or a Community Benefits Agreement?
Last week, the DeVos-created and DeVos-funded organization AmplifyGR, announced that they hired a new staff person, someone who will, according to Facebook page, “further build a business community that is reflective of the neighborhoods we serve.”
Danielle M. Williams was hired by AmplifyGR to be the new Director of Economic Opportunities. According to the AmplifyGR website:
“With the addition of Danielle to our team, Amplify GR is poised to continue connecting entrepreneurs with the resources needed to build their businesses,” said Jon Ippel, executive director for Amplify GR. “Danielle’s expertise will be an asset in strengthening economic pathways for neighbors, as she has been an integral player in large corporate teams, nonprofit structures and local municipal work. Her experience working in these environments is valuable to our partnerships with businesses and community entrepreneurs.”
Williams started her own consulting agency in 2017, DMWilliams Consulting, LLC. Based on the information from the consulting firm website, the new AmplifyGR employee has most of her experience working with the business community.
The AmplifyGR website also says of the new position that Danielle Williams will have, stating:
As Director of Economic Opportunities, Williams will identify and help activate business ownership and employment opportunities for neighbors. Williams will work with employers to ensure their business practices align with the organization’s employment goals including:
- Employing neighborhood talent
- $15 per hour wage with benefits
- Career advancement opportunities
- Felon-friendly hiring
Each of these four things sound good on paper, but how will they translate into reality? How will this new position be able to leverage what workers will based on the four things listed above?
This new position, along with all of the other AmplifyGR staff job descriptions is very focused on creating businesses and entrepreneurs. This of course is not surprising, since this is exactly what the DeVos family was founded on with the Amway corporation.
The best way to leverage employee power is to form a labor union. Labor unions have 150 years of experience in working to get better wages, benefits and to create workplace democracy. If workers from the neighborhood are hired, what guarantees will they have that the businesses that will be partnering with AmplifyGR will hire ex-felons, provide a minimum $15 an hour wage or employment advancement opportunities? Michigan is an employment at will state. This means that an employer may generally terminate an employment relationship at any time and for any reason, unless a law or agreement provides otherwise. If people were unionized, then they would have more power to fight against termination of employees.
However, it is not likely that a DeVos-created and DeVos-funded entity such as AmplifyGR would help residents of the Boston Square Neighborhood to be part of a union. We can conclude this, since the DeVos family has a long history of opposing labor unions of any kind. In addition to opposing labor unions, the DeVos family was instrumental in passing a Right to Work law in Michigan in 2012, pushing to eliminate public education teacher pensions and working to fight against public sector employee benefits throughout the state. The DeVos family does this by financing candidates which share the same contempt for unions as the DeVos family does and by also crafting anti-union policies through organizations like the West Michigan Policy Forum.
Unions would also be extremely beneficial to those who live in the southeast part of Grand Rapids, where AmplifyGR operates, in terms of housing. A tenant union would be a powerful tool to fight against predatory landlords and property management companies, which are not being challenged anywhere in the city of Grand Rapids.
Some of these ideas were suggested during the 2017 town hall forums that AmplifyGR hosted, along with a whole other host of ideas, like Community Land Trusts and a Community Benefits Agreement (CBE). A Community Benefits Agreement fits in with neighborhood control, which could include the four areas that AmplifyGR says their new staff person would try to implement. In fact, a CBE agreement could include many more demands and it is something that should be pursued for the future viability of the neighborhood. Before any development happens, residents could demand a Community Benefits Agreement before agreeing to what it is that AmplifyGR has proposed to do in the Boston Square Neighborhood.
Based on the 3 community meetings that AmplifyGR held in 2019, centered around their 9-acre development proposal, there are just 2 references to jobs in their 27 page document. Those two references to jobs were, jobs in the neighborhood and “good paying jobs.” Neither of these references expanded to what local jobs or good paying jobs meant, which is exactly what a Community Benefits Agreement could do for those who live in the Boston Square Neighborhood.
The City of Grand Rapids has yet to make a decision on the AmplifyGR proposal and before they do make a decision there will likely be a public hearing on the matter. Pushing for a Community Benefits Agreement is still possible. A community Benefits Agreement could provide the kind of long-term leverage that residents of that neighborhood will need, especially when faced with the deep pockets of the DeVos family.
Mutual Aid as Reparations: How we can all practice justice with the undocumented immigrant community in West Michigan
While people may not be familiar with the term Mutual Aid, humans have been practicing it for a long time. Anarchist thinker/writer Peter Kropotikin, began to develop a more robust sense of what Mutual Aid is in the later part of the 19th century, producing numerous essays and a book on Mutual Aid.
According to the Big Door Brigade, which has a great Mutual Aid Toolbox, provides this definition:
Mutual aid is a term to describe people giving each other needed material support, trying to resist the control dynamics, hierarchies and system-affirming, oppressive arrangements of charity and social services. Mutual aid projects are a form of political participation in which people take responsibility for caring for one another and changing political conditions, not just through symbolic acts or putting pressure on their representatives in government, but by actually building new social relations that are more survivable.
GR Rapid Response to ICE practices Mutual Aid, specifically with the undocumented immigrant community that experiences ICE violence. This group raises money to provide financial solidarity, offers transportation, legal aid, courtroom solidarity and sanctuary.
Those who are the recipients of the Mutual Aid that GR Rapid Response to ICE offers are primarily from Mexico and Central America. Some of the people who have fled those countries have been here for several decades and some have recently arrived. Regardless of how long people have been in the US, there is a clear connection to why they have fled their country of origin and US policy.
The United States government has a long history of intervention in Mexico and Central America. If fact, the US took by force roughly a third of Mexico, during the middle of the 19th Century, in what is generally called the US/Mexican War.
Since that time, US policy has impacted Mexico and Central America through direct military intervention, indirect military intervention and economy policies. Lets look at each of these three types of intervention and how they have contributed to the displacement of millions of people directly south of the US.
Direct Military Intervention
The US government has sent US soldiers to Mexico and Central America on a regular basis since the mid-19th Century. Here is a list of those direct military interventions:
- 1984 – Nicaragua: Month-long occupation of US troops in the area of Bluefields.
- 1895 – Panama: Marines land in Colombian province.
- 1896 – Nicaragua: Marines land in port of Corinto.
- 1899 – Nicaragua: Marines land at port of Bluefields.
- 1901 – 1914 – Panama: Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; opened canal in 1914.
- 1903 – Honduras: Marines intervene in the revolution.
- 1907 – Nicaragua: Dollar Diplomacy protectorate set up.
- 1907 – Honduras: Marines land during war with Nicaragua.
- 1908 – Panama: Marines intervene in election contest.
- 1910 – Nicaragua: Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
- 1911 – Honduras: US interests protected in civil war.
- 1912 – Panama: Marines land during heated election.
- 1912 – Honduras: Marines protect US economic interests.
- 1912 – Nicaragua: 10-year US military occupation, fought guerillas
- 1913 – Mexico: Americans evacuated during revolution.
- 1914 – 1918 – Mexico: Series of interventions against nationalists.
- 1918 – Honduras: Police Duty during unrest after elections.
- 1919 – Honduras: Marines land during election campaign.
- 1920 – Guatemala: 2-week intervention against unionists.
- 1923 – Mexico: US bombs rebellion to defend Calles
- 1924 – Honduras: Marines landed during election strife.
- 1925 – Panama: Marines suppress general strike
- 1932 – El Salvador: Warships sent during Marti revolt.
- 1954 – Guatemala: CIA directs exile invasion after new government nationalized US company lands.
- 1958 – Panama: Flag protest erupts into confrontation.
- 1964 – Panama: US military shoots Panamanians for urging canal’s return.
- 1966 – Guatemala: US Green Berets intervene against rebels.
- 1981 – 1992 – El Salvador: Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
- 1981 – 1990 – Nicaragua: CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
- 1983 – 89 – Honduras: US military maneuvers leads to base building near borders.
- 1989 – Panama: US sends 27,000 soldiers to arrest Noriega and bombs civilian targets.
Indirect US Military Intervention
Indirect US military interventions has taken on numerous forms in relationship to Mexico and Central America. Some of those forms include US military aid, like when the US provide El Salvador $1 million a day during the entire decade of the 1980s. Other forms of indirect military intervention happens when the US provides training to soldiers or the police force. The School of the Americas Watch has been documenting the number of military personnel from countries in Latin America that have received training at Fort Benning, Georgia. Go to this link to see the list.
Other indirect forms of US military intervention involve weapons sales and US military involvement in the Drug War, which has not done much to reduce the amount of drugs being brought into the US, but it has resulted in the increase of violence, particularly in Mexico. (see Drug War Capitalism, by Dawn Paley)
US Economic Policy’s impact on creating immigrants
US corporations have had their hands in Mexico and Central America for the past 150 years, so US government policy around economics has always been a reality, even if we only think of trade policies like NAFTA and CAFTA.
Once the US ended the bracero program in the 1960s, US companies started setting up factories in the northern part of Mexico, known as Maquiladoras. The claim was always made that these factories would raise the standard of living for Mexicans, but that never really happened. In the 1980s, the IIMF imposed massive austerity measures in Mexico, which radically devalued the peso and opened the door for privatization of public services.
The 1980s financial crisis in Mexico set the stage for the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA, a trade agreement that was signed between Canada, Mexico and the US. NAFTA went into effect on January 1st, 1994, which is exactly why the Zapatistas began their rebellion against what the called Neo-liberal global capitalism.
NAFTA has been devastating for most Mexicans, particularly for farmers and small business owners. Cheap US corn subsidies to Mexico has directly contributed to forcing at least 2 million Mexican farmers off their land, because they could not compete with US corn that flooded the market after NAFTA began. NAFTA, along with Plan Merida (a policy signed under George W. Bush, but continued with Obama and Trump), have resulted in massive displacement of Mexicans and in many ways is the root causes of why so many Mexicans are fleeing north to the US. For further documentation see this Fact Sheet.
The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) was adopted in 2005-2006 and has had very similar results in those countries as NAFTA had with Mexico. Thus CAFTA has also been an important component in displacing millions, many of which have also fled to the US.
These US trade policies in Mexico and Central America have also been devastating for the environments of those countries and have contributed significantly to Climate Change. Climate Change is now identified as another reason why people are fleeing those countries and coming to the US.
Mutual Aid for immigrants as Reparations
Considering the fact that US military and economic policy are the root causes for the millions of displaced immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America, we ought to consider that providing Mutual Aid to these individuals and families as a form of reparations.
Reparations is fundamentally a recognition that whole groups of people have been affected by policies and therefore are deserving of some form of economic or material compensation for the harm they and their ancestors have endured. Reparations are usually associated with African Americans, who have been demanding reparations for decades as a result of the legal policy of slavery. However, reparations have been paid by the US government to Japanese Americans, specifically to those families that were impacted by the US internment camps during WWII.
Thus, it seems that paying reparations to people from Central America and Mexico seems rather appropriate, especially considering that US military and economic policies have impacted the lives of millions of people from those countries and that the primary reason they have taken the risk to come to the US as undocumented immigrants is precisely because of these US policies. Now, the US government has not and will not anytime soon, own this history and pay reparations to the millions affected. However, we can take action by acknowledging this history and to contributes money, resources and time as both a form of Mutual Aid and Reparations, since the US military and economic policies have been done in our name.
If you are interested in practicing Mutual Aid as Reparations for undocumented immigrants living in West Michigan, then you are encouraged to be part of the work of GR Rapid Response to ICE and the Kent County I-Bond Fund.
Last weekend, WOOD TV 8 ran a story about Presidential Candidate Michael Bloomberg opening a campaign office in Grand Rapids, on East Fulton.
Kent County Commission and staffer for State Rep. David LaGrand, Phil Skaggs, was the point for the new Bloomberg campaign office in Grand Rapids. In the channel 8 story, Skaggs said:
“There are major things at stake here and another four years of Donald Trump is going to turn America into a place we don’t recognize,” Skaggs said during a speech.
Skaggs says he supports Bloomberg because he has a great track record for getting things done and pragmatic solutions. He also mentioned Bloomberg’s campaign being moderate enough to capture voters who are undecided.
The WOOD TV 8 story goes on to say:
When asked about the criticism Bloomberg has faced for the “stop and frisk” policy he instituted while serving as New York City mayor, Skaggs said every candidate may have issues that people may be concerned about.
With this line of thinking, lets look at what issues people “may be concerned about,” as it relates to Michael Bloomberg.
- Michael Bloomberg is, by definition, an oligarch. An oligarch is a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence.
- Bloomberg presided over a police force in New York City, which engaged in a war against black people and other people of color.
- Michael Bloomberg ran a massive Stop & Frisk program, allowing the NYPD to stop, frisk, harass and intimidate mostly black residents, but also other residents of color.
- As Mayor of New York, Bloomberg also ran a massive surveillance program targeting Muslims, as is well documented in the report, Mapping Muslims.
- Michael Bloomberg defended the NYPD amidst accusations that cops used the Stop & Frisk practice to regularly assault black and latinx women.
- Bloomberg has a long history of womanizing and sexism, including dozens of lawsuits brought against him for sex discrimination and sexual harassment.
- Bloomberg has used prison labor to make campaign calls.
- As Mayor of New York, Bloomberg sought to take control of the public schools, shut down numerous “low-performing schools” and promoted Charter Schools.
- Poverty in New York City expanded during the Bloomberg years.
- Gentrification escalated while Bloomberg was Mayor of New York City. Michael Bloomberg says that the financial crisis of 2008 was cause by end red-lining.
As Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg engaged in repressive tactics against the Occupy Wall Street Movement and removed their camp. - Bloomberg has a history of not supporting an increase in the minimum wage.
- Bloomberg has bankrolled numerous GOP candidates over the years, including former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.
- Bloomberg has used his wealth to buy the silence of non-profit and think tank groups like Emily’s List and the Center for American Progress.
- Michael Bloomberg is spending millions on paid political ads, which is creating a tremendous amount of bias in support of Bloomberg by pundits.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to any serious critique of the billionaire Michael Bloomberg. It is important for people to not be swayed by the ads blitz from Bloomberg, but to do so real investigation of his history.
Wyoming City Commission doesn’t really want diversity and they don’t practice democracy: Movimiento Cosecha GR and the fight for Driver’s Licenses for All
On Monday night, Movimiento Cosecha GR went back to the Wyoming City Commission meeting to continue to press for that commission to pass a resolution in support of Driver’s Licenses for All.
We reported on their first attempt to get a resolution passed by the Wyoming City Commission, which was two weeks ago, on February 3rd. At that meeting, several commissioners made it clear that they were not hearing what the immigrants were sharing during public comment. One after another, members of the immigrant community shared with the commissioners that they live in constant fear of police. Several of the commissioners commented that the Wyoming police were not to be fear and were good public servants.
A similar reaction was made by several commissioners and the Mayor of Wyoming, to those who spoke in favor of Driver’s Licenses for All on at the February 17th meeting. Movimiento Cosecha GR had asked on February 3rd to have Driver’s Licenses for All on the agenda for the February 17th meeting. It was not on the agenda for the February 17 meeting.
When it came time for public comment, the Mayor reiterated that public comment was not meant for dialogue, rather it was for people to make statements about issues they were interested it. However, the Mayor also told those present that the Wyoming City Commission discussed the Driver’s Licenses for All resolution request prior to the February 17 meeting and that they decided that this was not a local matter and that state policy makers should deal with state matters, not the Wyoming City Commission.
So, not only was the issue of Driver’s Licenses for All not on the agenda, the commission made a decision without consulting those who presented the issue on February 3rd. There was no public hearing on this critical issue and in the minds of the Mayor of Wyoming and the City Commission, this matter was taken care of. Without missing a beat, the Mayor of Wyoming then told the who came with Movimiento Cosecha GR that they could still share their thoughts with the commission during public comment. In other words, “you can tell us what you think, but we already made the decision to say no to your request.”
Members of Movimiento Cosecha GR still got up to speak during public, with most of them speaking in Spanish and using a translator. This was important to note for three reasons. First, some people who were in the audience did not understand English, so speaking in Spanish benefitted those who were participating in the democratic process. Second, this issue was important to raise, because the City of Wyoming does not provide translation for those who attend public meetings, even though there are 16,600 Latinos that live in that city, according to recent census data.
The third reason why this issue is important is because the City of Wyoming would only give people who spoke in Spanish 3 minutes to speak, which included the amount of time it took for people to translate. This means that those relying on a translator would only have half as much time as those who spoke English during public comment. How can anyone claim that this is fair and equitable?
Members of Movimiento Cosecha GR continued to present information about the importance of Driver’s Licenses for All and the fear that they experience without having a driver’s license. Many who spoke did not feel that adhering to the 3 minute time limit, since they were relying on translation, was fair, so several of them continued to speak about the need for a resolution from the Wyoming City Commission. The Mayor kept interrupting and trying to cut them off for going over the 3 minute timeline, even going as far as to call members of Movimiento Cosecha GR “rude.”
Another member of Movimiento Cosecha GR pointed out that during the February 3rd Wyoming City Commission meeting, the Mayor had said that he welcomed input from “minority” communities and that having more diverse people participating in civic matters was good for the city. Well, here was Movimiento Cosecha GR participating in civic matters, reflecting the diversity of the community and the Mayor shut them down.
These kinds of meetings are always presented as democracy in action, yet it has been the experience of Movimiento Cosecha GR that these kinds of meetings are really about local government control, where local governments get to decide what is best for people and where anytime people challenge business as usual they are labeled as disruptive. La Lucha Sigue y Sigue!
We should be concerned about all corporate contributions in the 2020 Michigan Senate Race
Last Thursday, the Detroit News ran an article about how the DeVos family has channeled $800,000 to a Super PAC that is targeting Michigan Senator Gary Peters.
The article breaks down how much each member of the DeVos family has contributed to the Super PAC that is backing the GOP candidate running against Peters, John James. The Super PAC uses the name Better Future MI Fund.
The bulk of the article is typical of how mainstream media deals with the conservative/liberal binary, with comments from both sides, polling data and a brief assessment of the DeVos family influence in electoral politics.
What is missing from the story is information on who has contributed to the re-election campaign of Senator Peters, which should be a basic element of journalism within the framework of electoral politics.
I have seen numerous people posting the Detroit News article on social media, with lots of people expressing concern over the DeVos family’s support for John James. This is completely understandable, considering that the DeVos family has contributed more to political candidates in Michigan than any other family in recent decades. If people read this blog, then they are well aware that GRIID has written a great deal about the DeVos family, possibly more than any other online entity in the past decade, which includes our 400 plus page document on the DeVos Family entitled, We’re Rich and We Do What We Want.
However, it is highly problematic to not look at who has been contributing to the Peters campaign, especially since his campaign has raised more money as of the last election finance reporting ($11,578,659), which is $3 million more than what John James has raised at $8,238,521.
Senator Peters is not being funded by benign entities, but many from the corporate world, particularly the military industry. This should not be surprising since Peters is a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Armed Services Committee. In addition, Peters has been a staunch defender of US empire and US imperialism since he took over for Senator Carl Levin.
Some of the major contributors to Senator Gary Peters in recent years are: General Dynamics (military), Blackstone Group (global real estate), Dow Chemical, DTE Energy, Goldman Sachs, Ford Motor Company, Visa Inc and CMS Energy.
The problem with the failure to provide robust reporting on political contributions during an election year is that it often perpetuates the liberal/conservative binary and doesn’t challenge the problem of corporate influence in electoral politics, regardless of which party a candidate belongs to.
In response to Pope’s comments about the global wealth gap, the Acton Institute’s founder says the poor are better off than they were 10 years ago
Earlier this month the leader of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, addressed a group of global financial leaders, calling out the growing wealth gap around the world.
The Vatican News posted a summary of the Pope’s comments directed at those who have a great deal of power to direct global economic matters. The Pope’s comments came during a a seminar entitled, New Forms of Solidarity:
“The world is rich, and yet the number of poor people is swelling all around us.”
Hundreds of millions of people, said the Pope, are struggling in extreme poverty, and are lacking food, housing, healthcare, schooling, electricity, and drinkable water. Around 5 million children will die this year of causes related to poverty, he said.
The Pope went on to acknowledge that there are solutions, stating:
Poverty can be overcome, said the Pope, if an economic system is put in place that includes, feeds, cures, and dresses those left behind by society. “We have to choose what and who to prioritize,” he said. Our choice will lead either to increased social injustice and violence, or to “humanizing socio-economic systems”.
Pope Francis then identified what he referred to as Structures of Sin:
Currently, the 50 richest people possess the equivalent of US$ 2.2 trillion. The Pope said that, on their own, they could finance “medical care and education for every poor child in the world, either through taxes and/or philanthropy” and save millions of lives every year. And he condemned recurrent tax breaks for wealthy individuals as “structures of sin”. “Every year hundreds of millions of dollars – which should be collected as taxes and go to finance healthcare and education – instead end up in offshore accounts,” he said.
Acton Institute Founder Rev. Robert Sirico responded to Pope Francis’s comments in a recent Acton podcast. Rev. Sirico says that the Pope’s claim that poverty is growing is wrong, yet the Acton Institute founder offers no countering evidence, other than to say that all of the organizations that analyze economics have a different take on the matter. Sirico goes on to say that, “the poor are better off today than they were 10 years ago.”
The Acton founder then respond’s to the Pope’s comments about Structural Sin. With a sort of mental jiu jitsu, Sirico states that there is an unfair tax burden on the poor, because it doesn’t allow them to be creative with what they have. Sirico then goes on to say that the tax burden on the rich is also a problem, since, “the rich own the means of production and are the ones providing the poor with jobs.” The Acton founder thinks that businesses shouldn’t be taxed.
Sirico continues the be dismissive of the Pope’s comments, which included his comments about welfare and social services as being problematic. The Acton founder completely avoids any real challenge to the wealth gap that the Pope addressed or any serious policy discussion about capitalism or other forums of solidarity.
Of course, for anyone who is familiar with the Acton Institute’s history, they would know that the organization founded by Rev. Sirico acts as an apologist for capitalism. This defense of capitalism is underscored by who sits on the board of directors and the regular attacks against an economic policy that threatens the system of capitalism. Interestingly enough, in looking at the 990 documents for the Acton Institute, the most recent being from 2017, Rev. Robert Sirico made $259,269.00 as the President. I guess making over a quarter of a million dollars in annual salary is a good reason to be an apologist of wealth and capitalism.
MLive celebrates the new Amazon distribution center, omits the company’s exploitation of workers and profits from oppression
In the past few days, MLive has run two articles on the new Amazon distribution center in Gaines Township.
The first article, from February 10, talks about how many people Amazon plans on hiring for the facility which will likely open this Spring. The MLive story states that those hired in will make $15 an hour, plus it acknowledges that Amazon received a $4 million grant from the Michigan Strategic Fund, to assist in opening up the new fulfillment center.
There was a second MLive article that appeared on February 12th, with the focus being on what kind of partnerships the company hopes to create with the opening of the new distribution center in Gaines Township. Amazon says they want to “give back to the community.”
The only partnership the article mentions is a possible partnership with the Kent Intermediate School District. The KISD Superintendent states:
“For example, we could envision having an instant relationship due to the complexity of the distribution center with the automation such as with our Megatronics program. Hopefully, as they get settled we can nurture and develop a partnership for the students we serve and for Amazon.”
Such a statement is rather disturbing, especially coming from the Superintendent of the ISD.
The February 12 MLive article goes on to talk about how Amazon is committed to becoming a sustainable business, by implementing a net zero carbon policy by 2040. Unfortunately, there are no details about how the company plans on achieving these goals. For instance, Amazon distribution centers rely on a massive fleet of vans to deliver the items that people purchase online. These vehicles are all currently gas powered, which means that hundreds of vans from the new Gaines Township facility will be deployed daily, powered by fossil fuels, thus creating more pollution.
What the MLive articles failed to acknowledge were the following:
- Amazon does not support labor unions, as was reflected in a leaked video that was sent to management without the Amazon corporate system.
- Amazon is owned by Jeff Bezos, the richest person on the planet, with an estimated wealth of $126 Billion. He makes approximately $2,489 per second — more than twice what the median US worker makes in a week.
- The Amazon Web Services’ cloud computing platform is the host for Palantir’s Investigative Case Management (ICM) software. ICM is then used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to manage their caseload and facilitate the tracking down and deportation of undocumented immigrants. Palantir, a data analytics firm, receives taxpayer dollars to provide these algorithms to government agencies, with its ICE contract being worth over $51 million. For its part, Amazon in turn receives $600,000 a month from Palantir. In addition, Amazon’s new home-security company (Ring), works with hundreds of law enforcement agencies and ICE to provide video from the Ring system that can also be used to target the undocumented community. Source: https://mijente.net/2018/10/whos-behind-ice-the-tech-companies-fueling-deportations/
Amazon will being paying low wages to the 1,000 new employees at the Gaines Township distribution center, even though the owner of Amazon (Jeff Bezos) will make more in one second than what these new Amazon employees will make in a week. Plus, Amazon is profiting from the oppression of undocumented immigrants that ICE is targeting, through the government’s partnership with Palantir and Amazon. And we are supposed to be excited, even grateful, that Amazon is opening this new distribution center?
Betsy DeVos Watch: 2021 Education Budget proposal will do for public education what Citizen’s United did for the electoral process
On Monday, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, posted a a press release about President Trump’s proposed education budget. DeVos refers to the budget proposal as. “a transformative, student-first budget.”
The press release goes on to say:
“This budget proposal is about one thing—putting students and their needs above all else,” said Secretary DeVos. “That starts with creating Education Freedom Scholarships and helping 1 million more students find the best educational fit for them. We know education freedom helps students succeed, and it’s long past time for Congress to act to give students and their families more choices and more control.”
Once again, Betsy DeVos loves to claim that the Department of Education is all about “putting students and their needs above all else.” She supports this claim by suggesting that Congress pass the Education Freedom Scholarships bill, which essentially allows people and corporations to donate to a designated scholarship granting organization (SGO) and be reimbursed in the form of a tax credit. With the DeVos plan, states would designate the eligible SGOs, but the federal government would fund the tax credit reimbursement, up to $5 billion total. Once again, public money (in the form of tax credits) would be used to support Charter and Private school systems.
Equally disturbing is the fact that the proposed education budget would consolidate, “nearly all existing K-12 formula and competitive grant programs into one block grant to States, called the Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged (ESED) Block Grant.”
This means that programs like Migrant Education, Neglected and Delinquent Education, English Language Acquisition, Education for Homeless Children, Rural Education, Native Hawaiian Education, Alaska Native Education, Arts in Education and a whole list of programs have NO money allocated to them in the 2021 Education Budget. Instead, States and local school districts would have complete control over how the ESED Block Grants would be spent, which means that States and local school districts would have the power to channel funding to the projects they support, which many NOT include funding for some of the most vulnerable students in the country. For a full list of the programs impact in the proposed consolidation, click here. Notice that in the 2021 Budget Request there are no funds that are earmarked for these programs.
At the end of the press release, DeVos includes comments from 10 supporters of the proposed education budget. Some of those included are politicians, while others are CEO’s of organizations that embrace the Neo-Liberal Education model such as Project Lead the Way and the National Skills Coalition.
Interesting to note that there are already numerous entities that are speaking out against the Trump/DeVos proposed Education Budget. The Council for Opportunity in Education says that the proposed budget would slash overall funding for the TRIO programs by 13% or $140 million.
Americans for the Arts wrote a critique of the proposed Education Budget and is calling on Congress to not only reject this misdirected budget request, but further increase funding for these important cultural agencies.
The American Library Association said:
The White House proposal to eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) again dismisses the value of America’s 120,000 academic, public, school and special libraries. The administration’s new budget not only brushes aside IMLS, it decreases funding for other library-eligible education programs.
Even the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, an entity which has benefited from the Neo-Liberal Education Model, came out against the proposed Education Budget with this comment:
“President Trump has consistently said that school choice is a priority for his administration, but this budget, if enacted, would leave families in need with fewer school options. The education vision put forward by this budget is chilling. It would provide—through the proposed ‘Education Freedom Scholarships’ tax credit—extra federal financial help for families to access private schools, while withdrawing support for public school choice for our most vulnerable families by doing away with the Charter Schools Program (CSP).
We must not be fooled by Betsy DeVos’s claim that the budget is all about empowering students and parents. The proposed Education Budget for 2021, will continue to push the Neo-Liberal Education model, especially if Congress passes the Education Freedom Scholarship bill that will do for education what Citizens United did for the electoral process.
How to Win Driver’s Licenses for All in Michigan
As we reported, last fall legislation was introduced in the Michigan House and the Senate to allow those who are 
undocumented to obtain a Driver’s License in Michigan. (Senate Bills 631 & 632 and House Bills 5192 & 5193)
The fact that this legislation was introduced was the result of the immigrant-led mobilization to force the issue in the larger community and within the realm of electoral politics.
Across the state of Michigan, the push to win Driver’s Licenses for All is being led by Cosecha Michigan, the immigrant-led movement that has made this a central issue for the past two years. This movement has been gaining momentum in Michigan and believes that this campaign can be won. Those involved in the work to get Driver’s Licenses for All in Michigan believe this because:
- They believe in the power of social movements
- Several states have passed Driver’s Licenses for All recently, which were campaigns led by the immigrant community
- Obtaining Driver’s Licenses for All is what the undocumented community wants right now!
This campaign still has lots of work to do in Michigan and there are a variety of approaches being taken by different components of the larger movement. Here are things that people can do right now to be part of winning Driver’s Licenses for All in Michigan:
- Attend meetings being hosted by Movimiento Cosecha GR to learn about what work that the immigrant community and allies can do. Go to their Facebook page to find dates and times for meetings https://www.facebook.com/cosechagr.
- Work to get your faith community to endorse the campaign
- Work to get your city or county commission to endorse the campaign
- If you own a business, you can publicly display that you support the Driver’s Licenses for All campaign
- Find out how to participate in the upcoming May 1st activities, again by contacting Movimiento Cosecha GR https://www.facebook.com/cosechagr.
- For Allies, attend a Crowd Safety Training, which is a direct way to support the immigrant community when they do public actions. The next Crowd Safety Training is Wednesday, February 26th. https://www.facebook.com/events/169899957641176/
- Contact members of the House Transportation Committee – Please contact each and ask them to give the Drive SAFE bills a public hearing (House Bills 5192 and 5193).
Jack O’Malley (R) Committee Chair, 101st District, Phone: (517) 373-0825,
Email: JackOMalley@house.mi.gov
Gary Eisen (R) Majority Vice-Chair, 81st District, Phone: (517) 373-1790,
Email: GaryEisen@house.mi.gov
Triston Cole (R), 105th District, Phone: 517-373-0829 Toll Free: 855-DIST-105,
Email: TristonCole@house.mi.gov
Jason Sheppard (R), 56th District, Phone: (517) 373-2617,
Email: JasonSheppard@house.mi.gov
Julie Alexander (R), 64th District, Phone: (517) 373-1795,
Email: JulieAlexander@house.mi.gov
Joseph Bellino (R), 17th District, Phone: (517) 373-1530,
Email: JosephBellino@house.mi.gov
Gary Howell (R), 82nd District, Phone: 517-373-1800,
Email: GaryHowell@house.mi.gov
Lynn Afendoulis (R), 73rd District, Phone: (517) 373-0218,
Email: LynnAfendoulis@house.mi.gov
Tim Sneller (D) Minority Vice-Chair, 50th District, Phone: (517) 373-3906, Toll-Free: (844) SNE-LLER,
Email: TimSneller@house.mi.gov
Cara Clemente (D), 14th District, Phone: (517) 373-0140,
Email: CaraClemente@house.mi.gov
Tenisha Yancey (D), 1st District, Phone: (517) 373-0154 Toll-Free (888) 254-5291,
Email: tenishayancey@house.mi.gov
Jim Haadsma (D), 62nd District, Phone: (517) 373-0555,
Email: JimHaadsma@house.mi.gov
Nate Shannon (D), 25th District, Phone: (517) 373-2275,
Email: NateShannon@house.mi.gov
Together we can win Driver;s Licenses for All! Hasta La Huelga!
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 