Incumbents, Money and the Michigan Congressional Races
In electoral politics, money rules. This is the case with the upcoming Congressional races in Michigan, particularly the races in West Michigan. We take a look at the Michigan Senate race and the races in the 2nd and 3rd Congressional Districts, which are just 8 months away.
Senator Debbie Stabenow has $6 million more in campaign funds than her closest competitor, Republican Sandy Pensler, according to recent campaign finance data. Senator Stabenow has raised $11,428,649 and the leading Republican candidate, Sandy Pensler, has raised $5,015,888.
Stabenow, who is the ranking member of the Agricultural Committee, also sits on the Budget Committee, Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Finance Committee. Committee seats often determine what sectors candidates receive lots of money from during elections.
You can see listed here, the top 20 entities contributing to Stabenow’s re-election campaign. 
There are numerous financial entities, like Goldman Sachs, Rock Holdings (a subsidiary of Quicken Loans), Citigroup, BlackRock Inc and the Sterling Group. In the Energy and Natural Resources arena, Stabenow receives money from DTE Energy and CMS Energy. In addition, the Senator from Michigan has received funds from Ag sector companies such as DowDuPont, Monsanto and the Coca Cola Co.
Other notable contributors are Votesane PAC, which is a bipartisan group, which has contributed to more Republicans than Democrats and the Blackstone Group, which is the largest real estate company in the world. The Blackstone Group has been the target of many popular movements and tenant unions around the globe, according to the group Right to the City.
2nd Congressional District
In the 2nd Congressional District, incumbent Rep. Bill Huizenga ($873,441) is way ahead of the his challenger, Democrat Rob Davidson ($139,478).
Huizenga sits on the House Financial Services Committee and is Chairman of the Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment Subcommittee. Therefore, it is no surprise that nearly all of the top 20 contributors in the 2018 Elections are from the financial sector.
3rd Congressional District
Of the three races we are looking at, the 3rd Congressional race has the least amount of money in it. Incumbent Rep. Justin Amash has raised a total of $382,709, with the three Democratic candidates raising a combined $35,000.
Amash sits on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and is part of the Subcommittee on Information Technology and the Subcommittee on National Security. Amash’s campaign contributors are more homegrown, with entities like Michigan Industrial Tools, S. Abraham and Sons, Wolverine Gas & Oil, Autocam Corp, Morning Star Company and the Windquest Group.
However, Amash has also received sizable contributions from the House Freedom Fund, the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Libertarian Think Tank founded by the Koch Brothers, the Cato Institute.
It seems pretty clear that in all three of these races, the incumbents, all of which have far big campaign war chests, will be the likely winner in the November 2018 Election.
A small victory against Settler Colonialism in Kalamazoo: An interview with Ben Williams
On Tuesday, Kalamazoo City Commissioners voted to remove the Fountain of the Pioneers statue from Bronson Park.
The statue of the Fountain of the Pioneers has attracted attention since a master plan was approved in 2016. The fountain includes a representation of a European settler with a weapon in his hand towering over a Native American.
Yesterday, we interviewed Ben Williams (Potawatomi) about his thoughts on the significance of the vote to remove the statue that contributes to a Settler Colonial narrative.
Women, Influence and the Neoliberal Model
On Wednesday, the Grand Rapids Business Journal will celebrate their annual list of the Most Influential Women in West Michigan.
This celebration, will feature Lis Wiehl, who was a reporter and legal analyst for Fox News for 15 years. The event, which is March 7, is one day before International Women’s Day. Now, I don’t know if this is intentional, but International Women’s Day and the Grand Rapids Business Journal (GRBJ) event have nothing in common, except that it involves women.
International Women’s Day was started based on the exploitative working conditions of women in the garment industry, which resulted in a fire at the Triangle Factory in New York City, on March 25, 1911. One hundred and twenty-three women died that day, which led to an international outcry and the birth of a new movement led by women.
The GRBJ event doesn’t honor working class women, it honors primarily professional women and mostly women who are part of the business class.
The list of 50 women ranges from women in government, to those in business and women in the non-profit sector. There is one woman who is identified as a community asset and advocate and two women who work in the media business.
The list of 50 most influential women made up most of those in business (25) and those in the non-profit sector (17), with those in government tallying 5.
Since the list was created by the Grand Rapids Business Journal, it is no surprise that women in business dominated the list. However, even though there were 17 women listed as being in the non-profit sector, in many ways it is difficult to distinguish at times the difference between businesses and non-profits.
The non-profit sector is structured like a business, with a board of directors and is often staff with professionals who have little or limited experience with the populations they provide services to.
Before people get all bent out of shape, I am not suggesting that none of these women do good work. Doing good work is not the point of the critique here, instead I want to challenge our notion of what it means to be influential in West Michigan.
The definition of the word influence is, the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself. The definition is somewhat vague and does not imply that having influence over people is to the benefit of the community.
Those in government often make decisions that have negative consequences for some people, most often communities of color and working class individuals and families. For instance, the tax structure, police policies, housing and education policies can be extremely detrimental to communities who are the most marginalized, as we have seen in West Michigan, when it comes to policing policies, housing and especially how policing impacts communities of color.
Betsy DeVos clearly has influenced education policy in her first year as Secretary of Education. DeVos has pushed her neoliberal education policy preferences that has favor charter and private schools, cut funding for schools that impact communities of color and changed Title IX policies by allowing men’s rights groups a larger say in campus sexual assault policy, as we have been documenting in section called Betsy DeVos Watch.
In addition, the kind of influence that Mayor Bliss and Commissioner Lenear, both included on the list, has often not faired well for people living in poverty and communities of color. The last year has seen bad decisions or a lack of action on the part of the Grand Rapids City Commission around police violence, immigration status and housing issues that has benefited developers over renters in several neighborhoods.
When we look at how women in business can influence people, here it is also clear that those most vulnerable can be negatively impacted. Women in business can make decisions that perpetuates the wealth gap, impact the environmental justice issues like air quality and food, plus women in business can also make decisions that determine the larger political climate, through contributing to political campaigns, lobbying and what networks or associations they are part of that influences public policy.
Consider Birgit Klohs with the Right Place Inc., one of the 50 Most Influential Women in West MI. The Right Place Inc. tries to attract businesses to set up show in West Michigan, particularly international companies. For instance, the Right Place Inc. has been instrumental in bringing several Israeli military companies to the area, plus Klohs sits of the board of the Michigan Israel Business Bridge, which develops business relationships with Israel and the companies in Michigan.
In addition, the Right Place Inc Board is made up of many of the members of the local power structure, a network of people and businesses that make up the wealthiest in West Michigan, who also make it their business to influence public policy to their benefit.
There are several other business women on the list of 50 most influential, such as bankers, consultants and CEOs of PR firms, which also all tend to serve the interests of those in power.
Then there are all those women who represent non-profits. While many of these non-profits provide necessary services to people who are marginalized, these same non-profits tend to provide those services in a way that keeps the systems of power in place. In other words, all of the services that these non-profits provide, do not address the root causes of poverty, food insecurity, poor public health, racism or patriarchy. Instead these non-profits work within a charity model that focuses on individual opportunity as opposed to dismantling systems of oppression.
Therefore, if we are measuring these women as being the most influential, then what we really mean is that these women are influencing social, political and economic systems which generally do not threaten power. Another way of looking at this list, is that many of these women were chosen for the list of 50 most influential women in West Michigan because their influence serves a larger neoliberal agenda, which means systems of power are not challenged, economic disparities are perpetuated, systemic racism is protected and the transfer of public funds/resources going to the private sector escalates.
If we are determining that these women are the most influential through this neoliberal lens, then yes, they are influential.
Another model
There is another model that runs counter to the neoliberal model. It is based on feminist principles, like mutual aid, where people look out for each other and make sure that any injustice that exists is dismantled. This counter model practices prefigurative politics, which is a feminist principle where groups of people practice relationships that are based on the kind of world we want to live in – horizontal, not hierarchical, autonomous, relational, where justice is practiced and where the most marginal voices are centered.
I can think of lots of women in West Michigan who practice this model, women who do amazing work through grassroots organizing and insurgent cultural practice. There are lots of black and latinx women who are not interested in awards, but in fighting for their communities. These women fight against white supremacy, against male domination and against environmental racism. These amazing women also fight against the violence inflicted on immigrants, police brutality, gentrification, sexual assault and they fight against neoliberal capitalism and philanthro-capitalism.
These amazing women come from a long tradition of women that have fought for collective liberation, women like Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Fannie Lou Hamer, Diane Nash, Rosa Parks, Ella Baker, Elizabeth Martinez, Angela Davis, Dorothy Day, Audre Lorde and the members of the Combahee River Collective. These women are part of Black Lives Matter and Movimiento Cosecha, they are Indigenous women, women who make up artist collectives, do the work of mutual aid, create safe spaces, do the heavy lifting of emotional labor and community mourning. These are the women I find to be the most human, the most compassionate and the most influential in a world that I want to live in. To all of the amazing women who do not seek recognition, rather justice and collective liberation, I say Thank You!
The difference between Exceptional and Systemic Violence in the campaign on “gun control”
In the aftermath of the Parkland High School shooting, people are mobilizing around the issue of gun control. There is tremendous energy and passion around coming to terms with the realities of guns in the US. The issue is particularly mobilizing youth and it will no doubt be a major factor in the 2018 elections.
Later this month, there is a planned rally in Grand Rapids called March for Our Lives, on March 24 at Rosa Parks Circle. The events states that people are marching for common sense gun control, but doesn’t offer any information on what that means. Maybe it means a ban on assault rifles or weapons in schools, but at this point it is unclear the direction this “movement” is going in.
One of the problems with the initial reaction to the Parkland School shooting has been its focus on the types of guns used, as opposed to who uses guns and who is trafficking in guns.
There is a great article on It’s Going Down called, Disarm the Cops First: Reflections on Narratives of Exceptional and Systematic Violence after the Parkland Shootings, which provides some important and urgent analysis around the issues of guns in the US.
The authors of this article name what happened at Parkland School as exceptional violence, referencing the notion that these kinds of mass shootings do not happen very often. The article then points to what they refer to as Systemic Violence and focus on the fact that police departments across the country are involved in the killing of people on a regular basis. Police killings of people is normative, thus it is systemic.
The Washington Post has been tracking fatal police shootings since 2015, the same year that police shootings of black people once again began to be part of a reluctant national conversation. Their database shows that every year since 2015, there have been just shy of 1,000 fatal police shootings of civilians in the US – 995 in 2015, 963 in 2016, 987 in 2017 and already 169 in 2018.
The authors of the article mentioned above, thus make the case that we should disarm the police first, which seems like a sound strategy to this writer.
In addition, people in the US often like to claim tremendous moral authority around the issue of violence, but what is also overlooked, is the fact that the US government is the largest trafficker of weapons around the globe.
According to recent article on Defense News, “The U.S. State Department has set a new one-year record for clearing weapon sales, with $75.9 billion cleared by the department and announced by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency in fiscal 2017.”
One can see from the graphic above, just how much the US makes in weapons sales globally, compared to other countries.
Thus, any common sense gun control should first include not only a disarming of the police, since they systemically kill civilians, it should also include an end to US weapons sales abroad.
The harsh reality is, and this is what communities of color have always known, both in the US and around the world, that the US has no credibility when it comes to the issue of speaking out against systemic violence. As Dr. King said in his powerful speech Beyond Vietnam, “I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos, without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world: my own government.”
Again, these issues are all too familiar in the black community and other communities of color. In fact, the Movement for Black Lives has made it clear in their platform that an end to the war on black people is central to creating racial justice.
Therefore, as move move forward in discussing and taking action around gun violence in the US, we should first look to the black community and other communities of color for direction on how to deal with gun violence. Secondly, any platform or strategy for dealing with gun violence must include action on disarming the police and an end to the US trafficking of guns around the globe. We can ill afford more liberal, knee-jerk reactions when dealing with gun violence in this country. We must develop long-term strategies that deal with systemic violence and not just exceptional violence.
On Monday, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced that her office would begin a new investigation into Michigan State’s Title IX compliance, in light of the Dr. Larry Nassar revelations.
DeVos stated:
“This new Title IX investigation will look at systemic issues in the University’s handling of sex-based incidents involving Dr. Larry Nassar. Our Office for Civil Rights team will be in East Lansing shortly where they will join the Federal Student Aid team already on site. FSA is currently performing a Clery Act compliance examination regarding MSU’s reporting of crimes committed on campus.”
Considering that Title IX regulations have been weakened under Secretary DeVos, what will this “new” investigation look like and what will it mean for the numerous victims of Dr. Nassar and all of the other cases that were swept under the rug, involving athletes from the MSU football and basketball programs?
We know that Secretary DeVos met with several anti-feminist men’s groups for input on how to move forward on Title IX issues. All of these groups not only deny the current levels of sexual assault on college campuses, they believe that men are too often being blamed for committing sexual assault.
Some of the organizations that Secretary DeVos met with that influenced how she would approach Title IX issues were groups like National Coalition for Men Carolinas, which is a chapter of a national organization. This organization’s website states the following:
Men are easy targets, often staying silent while being publicly attacked by radical feminists and the media. But that is changing. Men are uniting and standing their ground against anti-male hatred and directed discrimination.
Besides their anti-feminist propaganda, one thing that the National Coalition for Men does is publish photos, names, and biographical details of women who have accused men—falsely, the National Coalition for Men insists—of rape. Its members routinely bring lawsuits against women-only networking groups and social events, crying discrimination.
Another group that influenced Secretary DeVos on Title IX policy is Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (Save). SAVE is another anti-feminist organization that believes that campuses are experiencing “rape culture hysteria.”
According to a recent article on Slate.com, “The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified SAVE, which opposes rules that prevent defense attorneys from entering evidence of a survivor’s sexual history in a rape trial, as a planet in the “manosphere” of misogynist online forums. SAVE lobbies against domestic violence protections, claims that the “leading reason” for abuse is “female initiation of partner violence,” and calls falsely accused perpetrators the “true victims of abuse.”
One addition group that met with Betsy DeVos while she was revising Title IX policy was Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE). The FACE website is full of videos, commentary and links that make the claim that too many men on college campuses across the US are being falsely accused of sexual assault and rape.
On top of the fact that we find it rather hypocritical for Secretary DeVos to be investigating Title IX compliance at MSU, since her office is influenced by anti-feminist and men’s rights groups, she will be collaborating with former Michigan Governor John Engler.
Engler was the Republican Governor in Michigan when Betsy DeVos was Chair of the Republican Party in Michigan. Plus, as interim President at MSU, Engler has hired John Truscott, his media spokesperson while he was Governor, to handle the PR component of the MSU crisis around the massive amount of sexual assault cases.
Does anyone really believe that with DeVos, Engler and Truscott that there will be much transparency or integrity to the MSU investigations?
A few days ago, the Grand Rapids Police Officers Association posted on their Facebook page the image below, with this message that accompanied the picture:
Thanks to the Brann family for proudly displaying these banners. Their support of law enforcement is second to none and means so much to those that serve and protect.
The Brann Family, which owns Brann’s Steakhouse, hung these banners at one of their restaurant locations, as a show of support for the Grand Rapids Police Department.
Several local organizations and some individuals posted this image and expressed anger and disgust that the Brann family would proudly display such support for the GRPD. This is completely understandable, considering some of the recent actions of the GRPD, specifically as it relates to their treatment of Black youth, last Spring and this past December, specifically the case of 11 year old Honestie Hodges.
The public support provided by Tommy Brann, owner of Brann’s Steakhouse, is also a State Representative. Rep. Brann serves on the State Police subcommittee and last October, voted in favor of the “Blue Lives Matter” legislation, which would make it an even larger crime to target police officers with violence.
In looking at the last few months of the Grand Rapids Police Officers Association Facebook page, it is clear that they not only don’t do well with criticism of their actions, they and their supporters provide all kinds of justifications for pulling guns on Black youth. 
The president of the GRPD union, also made it clear that what the officers involved in the detention of Honestie Hodges did, was completely by the book and just following procedure. Here is a quote from the President of the GRPD union Andy Bingel, as reported by Fox 17, in response to Chief Rahinsky’s comments after viewing the video of the arrest of Honestie Hodges:
“We just need to remember that we’ve got a job to do, and we can’t let this distraction take away from serving the citizens. I don’t expect people outside of law enforcement to understand everything we do. As hard as they might try to understand, they’re not going to, and I think we need to realize that.”
Apparently, Andy Bingel thinks that the public just doesn’t get it and they never will.
In many ways it is easy to find the Brann family’s support of the GRPD disconcerting. However, Brann is not the only one who provides support to the GRPD. Tommy Brann is a Republican State Representative, so many might conclude, “of course he supports the cops.” The reality is that most politicians support the police, regardless of what side of the political aisle they stand on.
In Grand Rapids for instance, Grand Rapids Mayor Bliss, according to Kent County Clerk Campaign Finance records, received $3,000 from the Grand Rapids Police Officers Labor Council PAC, during her 2015 run for mayor.
In the 2017 election for City Commission, Kurt Reppart, who is now one of the 1st Ward City Commissioners, received $1,500 from the Grand Rapids Police Officers Association PAC. In 2016, 1st Ward City Commissioner Jon O’Connor received $1,000 from the Grand Rapids Police Officers Labor Council PAC.
In 2016, Third Ward City Commissioner David Allen, received $1,000 from the Grand Rapids Police Labor Union PAC.
Now, just because these elected officials received funding from the police union or the police association, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are uncritical of the police. However, this writer is unaware of any serious proposals from the Mayor or City Commissioners to hold the police accountable.
This support for the GRPD goes deeper than elected officials, since many people have expressed support for the police, even lots of people who identify as liberal or progressive. These supporters might not be thrilled with the recent high profile cases of cops targeting Black youth, but the general policy of targeting black and brown neighborhoods is ok with lots of people who identify as liberals.
Alex Vitale, in his important book, The End of Policing, states: Well-trained police following proper procedure are still going to be arresting people for mostly low-level offenses, and the burden will continue to fall primarily on communities of color because that is how the system is designed to operate – not because of the biases or misunderstandings of officers.
It is by design, but many of us accept the dominant narrative that most cops are really about protecting and serving the public. This narrative must be questioned and dismantled.
The Black Panther Movie gives us an opportunity to talk about Colonialism, the African Independence Movement and US Imperialism
This post is primarily for White people. It is for White people who have seen Marvel’s Black Panther movie. Black Panther is an important film for a variety of reasons, many of which have been written about, but it is also an important film because it can help us to expand our radical imagination.
When I say the film can expand our radical imagination, what I mean is that the Black Panther movie can be a mechanism for us, especially for White people, to come to terms with the history of Colonialism in Africa, the African independence movement and the role of US imperialism throughout the continent of Africa.
Colonialism
The great African writer Walter Rodney, published in 1973, his powerful book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. In Rodney’s book, he lays out an important framework for how European colonialism undermined Africa.
So many of us White people have grown up with images of Africa that were dominated by starving children and those damn religious commercials trying to appeal to our guilt about the awful poverty that existed throughout Africa. What those images and commercials never told us was that African wealth and African resources were being extracted to benefit people living in Italy, France, Belgium, England, Spain, Portugal and Germany, along with the Europeans who were occupying African land as colonizers overseeing this massive resource extraction.
This massive extraction of resources from Africa were in the form of diamonds, oil, cocoa, coffee, wood, animals and of course African labor. The South African Anti-Apartheid movement did a great deal to make us aware of the massive levels of wealth extraction and which companies were profiting from structural racism & apartheid.
Imagine the millions of lives that were lost from colonial violence and exploitation. Imagine how many lives were ruined, how many families were torn apart and how much knowledge and creativity was stolen from African people. Also, it must be said that the massive wealth extraction from Africa and the brutality of European colonialism was all sanctioned by the christian church.
Lastly, just think of the incredible amount of cultural artifacts that were also extracted from Africa, only to end up in European museums without any acknowledgement of the colonial violence perpetrated to steal so much culture from Africa.
African Independence Movement
Like most of the Global South, many Africans grew tired of living under the boot of Colonialism and began to organize independence movements. After WWII, there was tremendous hope that Africa could once again be for Africans.
Anti-Colonial organizing in Africa had begun at the same time that European colonizers began their campaigns of conquest. The anti-colonial movements in Africa often began small, but continued to gain momentum over the centuries. These anti-Colonial movements took many forms, such as the formation of political parties, labor organizing and various manifestations of Pan-African campaigns to unite common struggles.
WWI and WWII greatly weakened many of the European powers and the anti-Colonial movement took advantage of this weakness, particularly after WWII. Anti-Colonial movements were begun in countries like Ghana, Kenya, the Congo, South Africa, Algeria, Namibia, Angola and Nigeria.
We know a great deal about these movements because of the relationship that people in the African American community had with those fighting for justice throughout Africa. Malcolm X had traveled to African in 1959, visiting several countries in an attempt to plan a tour by the head of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad. Malcolm X later went to Africa in 1964, in two separate trips, where he met with many independence leaders. In fact, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, and Ahmed Ben Bella of Algeria had all invited Malcolm X to serve in their governments.
However, some European countries and the United States were not happy about Africans wanting to their own independence. The US in particular was involved in several campaigns to undermine African independence movements, such as the US role in assisting the French battle for control of Algeria, the Congo independence movement and the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Ghana in 1966, Angola in the 1970s and 80s, putting Mobuto in power in Zaire, destabilizing Libya during the Reagan years, support for the dictatorship in Uganda and the continually siding with the South African government right up until the system of Apartheid could no longer be saved.
The US government spent billions of dollars to destabilize much of Africa, provided arms to dictatorships and refused to support any African independence movement.
US Imperialism in Africa today
The focus on the part of US policy in Africa has been an extension of European Colonialism or as some scholars would say, a form of Neo-Colonialism. Since the end of the Cold War, where Communism was no longer the primary justification for US intervention, you can see a rhetorical shift for US foreign policy, where the justification is now anti-terrorism, radical Islam or even humanitarian intervention.
Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the US has directly intervened militarily (sending troops, missile strikes, sending arms, training, drone attacks) in Africa on the following occasions:
- Somalia 1992 – troops
- Rwanda 1994 – weapons sales
- Sudan 1998 – missile strike
- Congo continuously – weapons sales
- Uganda continuously – weapons sales
- Kenya continuously – weapons sales
- Egypt continuously – weapons sales
- Morocco continuously – weapons sales
- AFRICOM 2007 – Expanding US military bases, training, drone strikes, etc
- Libya 2011 – direct military intervention
One of the most important developments in US Foreign Policy in Africa, is the creation and expansion of AFRICOM, The United States Africa Command. Established in 2007, AFRICOM really took off during the Obama administration and has been involved in expanding the US military footprint throughout Africa. This has meant more US military training of soldiers from African countries and training non-governmental forces who have been instrumental in creating destabilization throughout the region.
Nick Turse, writing for TomDispatch.com has been reporting on AFRICOM for years, with articles like this one from 2014. Turse, also has a book published on the subject of AFRICOM entitled, Tomorrow’s Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa.
Another person who has been providing important analysis on AFRICOM, is Margaret Kimberley, who writes for Black Agenda Report. She was recently interviewed about AFRICOM. To listen to that interview click here.
This post is just an overview of Colonialism in Africa, the the African Independence Movement and US Imperialism in Africa. There is a whole lot more we need to investigate and come to terms with as White people, who have knowingly or unknowingly been complicit in the colonial and imperialist violence that has been committed and continues to be committed in Africa.
We all have to do the work of learning this history and then providing support and solidarity to the current African movements that are still fighting for liberation. Going to see the Black Panther movie is an important introduction, but it is not enough. White people can’t claim some sort of empathy for Black Africans, just because we saw a movie. We have to come to terms with Colonialism and White Supremacy. Making a Facebook post about going to see the film doesn’t mean much if we don’t work to end US Imperialism in Africa.
Making English the Official Language in Michigan, racism, anti-immigration groups and the DeVos Family connection
Last Thursday, the Michigan House of Representatives voted to make English the official language for the State of Michigan. The measure passed by a 62 – 46 vote, mostly along party lines, with the majority of Republicans voting in favor of the legislation.
The language of House Bill 4053 can be found here, which basically makes English the official language in terms of state government functioning; including meetings, documents, the public record, etc.
The bill was introduced last year by Rep. Tom Barrett, with Triston Cole, Aaron Miller, Gary Glenn, Lana Theis, Peter Lucido, Shane Hernandez, Lee Chatfield being co-sponsors. Those giving the most to the campaigns of these state representatives can be found on the Michigan Campaign Finance Network link on donor tracking.
We found that most of the state representatives that sponsored the English only bill have primarily funded the bulk of their own campaigns. The exception is Rep. Tom Barrett, who introduced the bill. You can see below how much money they have received from primary funders.
Rep. Tom Barrett House – Republican Campaign Committee, $448,009,
Rep. Tristin Cole – self-funded $10,170
Rep. Aaron Miller – self-funded $8,370
Rep. Gary Glenn – self-funded $119,720
Rep Lana Theis – self-funded $40,000
Rep Peter Lucido – self-funded $236,000
Rep. Shane Hernandez, Sydesign – self-funded $10,580
Rep. Lee Chatfield – self-funded $78,000
There is no record of a public hearing, so we don’t know if there were any organizations or individuals who lobbied for or against this legislation. The bill was sent to the Government Operations Committee in June, which is chaired by Rep. Lee Chatfield and includes Rep. Tom Barrett, both co-sponsors of the HB 4053.
It is unfortunate that there is no record of a public hearing, as we don’t know if there were groups pushing to get this legislation passed. We do know that there are organizations, which have been advocating for English as the official language of states and the entire country, particularly the group US English.
US English regular updates from states where there is current legislation around making English the official language and the section under Latest News has an update on Michigan, which states:
Like other Official English legislation enacted over the years, H.B. 4053 is a common sense measure meant to reinforce English as our common language and to set a standard of expectation that Government and society will do more to encourage and enable the learning of English for residents. Far from an exclusionary measure, H.B. 4053 simply makes it clear that English is the sole language that must be used and available for all Government business, official acts and public records. Clear common sense exceptions are made for consistency with all federal law, teaching in language classes, the promotion of commerce, tourism, sporting events and public events, and occasions where “public safety, health and justice” would be served by the use of a language other than English at the discretion of state and local agencies.
This language might sound benign, but if you look closer at the history of US English tells us a different story.
US English was founded by anti-immigration activist John Tanton and Senator S. I. Hayakawa in 1983. John Tanton, a known white supremacist is also founder of groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform and Center for Immigration Studies . Both of these organizations are known anti-immigration groups that support closed borders.
According to SourceWatch, “In 1988, a set of internal memoranda from John Tanton to staff at the Federation for American Immigration Reform and U.S. English was leaked to the press. In them, Tanton warned of a coming “Latin onslaught,” questioned whether Latinos were as “educable” as others, and worried that Latinos were outbreeding whites.”
In looking at the major donors to US English it lists the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, which has contributed $248,000 over the following years: 1998, 2000-2001, 2003-2008. Looking at recent 990s from the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, there is no current funding to US English, however, the US English website still lists Mrs. Richard DeVos as a member of its Advisory Board (listed above on the right).
HB 4053 is clearly a racist piece of legislation that will only solidify White Supremacy into law. It is also clear that the DeVos Family has a history of funding the largest group in the country that promotes the idea that English should be the official language of states and the federal government. Add this to the long list of reasons why the DeVos Family should be viewed as imposing far right values and laws on the rest of us, values and laws that should be resisted.
GRPD shows up at Cosecha Press Conference, intimidates organizers, then waits in the parking lot for an hour to change the news coverage narrative
Yesterday, the immigrant justice group, Cosecha GR, held a press conference to call out law enforcement agencies on their behavior during a January 19 action in downtown Grand Rapids.
The demonstration took place near the Federal building, where those engaged in the action shut down traffic during rush hour. However, during the protest a motorist hit two people and in the aftermath of that violence the GRPD, the Kent County Sheriff’s Department and at least two federal marshals did nothing to pursue the motorist who hit those demonstrating or prevent further violence against those protesting in the street, which we reported on previously.
Before the Press Conference, Cosecha GR received a request from a reporter with MLive to “embargo” the video and allow him to vet it for legitimacy. The MLive reporter wanted Cosecha GR to send the video to MLive only and the vetting of the video was likely to go through the GRPD.
Such suspicion was verified, when this writer showed up before the noon time press conference and saw two GRPD cruisers in the parking lot of the Micah Center. Inside the building there were two officers with the GRPD, who were asking if Cosecha GR, “needed any help with their event.” A rather curious question, considering that this was a press conference, so why would the police be there, let alone ask if there assistance was needed?
Organizers of the Cosecha GR press conference asked the officers to leave and the press conference proceeded with news agencies from MLive, WZZM 13, Fox 17 and La Poderosa Radio.
The local news media received the following press release (posted below), which is the same message that Cosecha GR provided during the press conference, including several eye witnesses.
After the press conference, while walking out to the parking lot of the Micah Center, we could see the GRPD being interviewed by the three English language media outlets. Apparently, the GRPD waited around for an hour in order to tell “their side” of the story to the news media. This leads us to ask the question, did the GRPD show up at the Cosecha GR press conference because they were tipped off by the news media or because they are monitoring the communications between Cosecha GR members?
How the News Media Framed the issue
Despite the efforts of Cosecha GR to tell their story about what happened at the January 19 DACA protest, the local news media changed the narrative. The most egregious example, was what MLive posted. You can see the headline here, which frames it as protestors in the middle of the street, instead of referencing the time honored tradition of blocking traffic, as was mentioned in the Cosecha GR press release, which refers to the example of the 1963 march in Selma.
The MLive article then goes on to give the GRPD plenty of opportunities to respond to the claims of Cosecha GR. Here is one of the more ridiculous responses:
“You know what would solve this whole problem?” the officer said in response. “Not impeding traffic.”
Again, a complete lack of understanding about the tactic of shutting down traffic, in order to make the point that Cosecha GR made during the Press Conference and at all of their protests, which says, “we will stop interrupting your lives when you stop interrupting ours.” As long as ICE agents and local law enforcement arrest, detain and deport immigrants, Cosecha GR will resist this.
The GRPD also states in the MLive article that they come to protests to keep people safe, which was not the case in this instance, and that people need to request a permit to have these kinds of actions. The city of Grand Rapids wants people to get permits to protest, since it costs money and it allows the police to know what groups are doing. However, the organizers of the protest on January 19 did not request a permit, since they believe that they do not need permission to fight for justice, plus their choice to be in the street blocking traffic was because they were intending to engage in civil disobedience.
You can watch the coverage on WZZM 13 and WXMI 17, which also provides plenty of airtime to the GRPD.
Ultimately, what happened yesterday was that the GRPD, by showing up at the Cosecha Press conference was to: 1) intimidate those fighting for immigration justice, and 2) attempt to discredit the efforts of Cosecha GR by changing the narrative about what happened during the January 19 protest.
MLive eulogy for Billy Graham ignores the role the preacher played in supporting US Foreign Policy
Today, MLive ran a brief article on the passing of longtime TV evangelist Billy Graham. The article notes that Graham’s first “crusade” took place in 1947, in Grand Rapids.
The MLive reporter cites a previous interview with a Hudsonville couple, which attended to event with Graham in 1947, but beyond that the article provide little information, simply praise of how many souls Billy Graham touched.
What we offer as a counter to this narrative, is a book review previously published on Media Mouse, where this writer used to contribute.
In recent decades when people think of religious right leaders that have garnered public attention, names like Falwell, Robertson, and Haggard. Often the media attention given to these religious leaders is due to scandalous sexual behavior, as in the case of Haggard, or for unacceptable comments, such as when Falwell and Robertson both blamed 9/11 on the country’s tolerance of gays, feminists and abortionists. After reading The Prince of War: Billy Graham’s Crusade for a Wholly Christian Empire
Billy Graham came from a racially and economically privileged life near Charlotte, North Carolina. His father owned a substantial amount of land and used his wealth to broker deals that afforded Graham extra privileges as a youth. In the late 1930s, Graham became active in the church and even attended Bob Jones University, but when WWII came he switched schools and went to Florida under the pretenses that his health was bad. The author suggests that Graham may have done this to avoid being drafted by the military–both with his health issues and studying for the ministry–but there is not adequate documentation to make a strong case for this assertion.
In 1940 Graham again transferred schools and went to Wheaton College. There he met his future wife, the daughter of a wealthy businessman and “one of the most powerful men in the Christian missionary world, Dr. L. Nelson Bell.” Bell was also leader of the John Birch Society in the Chicago area. In 1943 Graham began his first ministry at a church just outside of Chicago, with a congregation of about 35 parishioners. Graham also founded a Professional Businessmen’s Club that boasted membership of around 300. Bothwell says that Graham’s nurturing of relations with the business community was a constant throughout his life as a religious leader. In 1944 Graham joined the military and became a Chaplin stateside, and when his orders to go overseas came through he again argued that his health prevented him from doing so. Graham quickly received a discharge and went to Florida where he was hired as a full time employee of Youth for Christ. It was in this capacity that Graham learned his trade and developed his decades long style of preaching that mixed scripture with bits of information of current events. With increasing popularity Graham, in 1950, founded the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association in Minnesota.
Graham was one of the first religious leaders who not only used media to his advantage; he understood the importance of owning media. Graham had purchased radio stations and formed a film company. Other media owners soon took note of Graham and media baron William Randolph Hearst soon invited Graham for a personal meeting. What impressed Hearst the most was Graham’s rabid anti-communist stance. Soon, with the assistance of Hearst, Graham was preaching to audiences of 350,000. Coupled with his growing popularity and his public stance against communism, Graham found an avenue to the White House that has spanned six decades.
According to Bothwell, the most consistent message that Graham brought to his relationships with US presidents was that the US needed to remain strong and he endorsed every war this country has engaged in since WWII. In 1950, Graham sent Truman a telegram counseling him to go to war in Korea:
“Millions of Christians praying God give you wisdom in this crisis. Strongly urge showdown with Communism now. More Christians in Southern Korea per capita than any part of the world. We cannot let them down.”
After Eisenhower was elected in 1952, Graham took a more active role in his support for the war by visiting troops in Korea. When he preached at his arena evangelistic crusades, Graham became one of the best US assets in its war on communism. In 1953 he said, “Communism is a supernatural power and gets its power from the Devil. Christianity is a supernatural power too, and gets its power from the Lord.” Graham–more than any preacher of his day–popularized the notion that we were living in apocalyptic times. He affirmed this idea as he developed his theological attacks during the Cold War. Graham said, “Communism could well be setting the stage for the anti-Christ that’s spoken of in the Bible. There have been anti-god movements but never one on the scale of communism.”
As Graham’s popularity grew with politicians, it continued to gain the admiration of businessmen. Graham befriended a wealthy oilman named Russell Maguire, an anti-Semite who began to subsidize part of Graham’s ministry. In 1956 he began to publish Christianity Today, one the most influential religious publications of the 20th Century. Graham hired, as it’s first editor, father-in-law and John Bircher, Dr. Bell. By this time Bell had developed a close relationship with the Rockefellers and other oil barons who were increasingly interested in oil discoveries in Latin America. The only problem was that most of the oil was on indigenous land. Graham was on the board of the Wycliffe Bible Translators (WBT), an organization that assisted oil companies in gaining access to indigenous lands, often with the help of military dictatorships.
While not a fan of Kennedy, Graham continued is White House connection during the Johnson years, but found his biggest ally in Richard Nixon. More than any other US president, Nixon used Graham as an ambassador abroad. Graham was sent to Israel, China, and all over Latin America, working often in conjunction with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. In 1969, Graham sent a 13-page letter to Nixon with his own plan for “ending the war in Vietnam.” In this plan, Graham advocated that Nixon bomb the dikes in the north to ruin the economy. Apparently, Graham didn’t know that this is a violation of International Law and would constitute a war crime. Graham not only was consistently in support of the war in Vietnam, he publicly denounced as anti-war protestors whom he said “gave comfort to the enemy.” This support for war was maintained through the Reagan/Bush/Clinton and current Bush administrations.
The other area of the book that deserves attention is how Bothwell juxtaposed the positions of Graham and another religious leader of his era, Martin Luther King Jr. While King denounced the war in Vietnam, Graham continued to lend his support and even criticized those who engaged in civil disobedience by saying, “I do believe we have the responsibility to obey the law. No matter what the law may be – it may be an unjust law – I believe we have a Christian responsibility to obey it. Otherwise you have anarchy.” This glaring difference between King and Graham was also evident in their stance on segregation and racial justice. Graham did not de-segregate the seating for his crusades until the later part of the 1970s and even responded to King’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech by saying, “Only when Christ comes again will the little white children of Alabama walk hand and hand with little black children.” Graham also suggested that the timing of the Civil Rights movement was questionable and Graham suggested that, “blacks and whites alike would benefit from a period of quietness in which moderation prevails.” King took notice of Graham’s denunciations and wrote to him in 1963 while sitting in a Birmingham jail. King wrote, “You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations.” Bothwell also notes that after the Watts rioting in 1965, Graham announced that the rioters were “being exploited by a small, hard core of leftists,” and he called on Congress to pass “new tough laws to curb this kind of thing.”
In The Prince of War, the author makes a strong case that Graham has been a priest of the powerful. This book is important not only because it provides a counter position to the imminent accolades that are sure to come once Graham dies, more importantly, it provides amble documentation that shows what role the religious right has played in American politics since WWII.
Cecil Bothwell, The Prince of War: Billy Graham’s Crusade for a Wholly Christian Empire
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 