Certainly, the extra agents and support staff being hired by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) would fall into that category. However, it seems the real financial windfall is being realized by the companies that are operating their private prisons or warehouses under contracts with the Dept. of Homeland Security.

A closer look at this situation was offered in a recent news story on NPR’s ‘Weekend Edition Saturday’ that noted “America’s two largest private prison companies, CoreCivic and GEO Group, are reporting a combined $1.4 billion in quarterly revenue over the spring as immigration detention closes in on record levels.”

These are publicly-traded companies, meaning their earnings, including how the money is made, is available to anyone interested in obtaining the information. One of those so interested was Vanesa Roma, an NPR reporter.

She pointed out that Patrick Swindle, CoreCivic’s President and CEO—in an earnings call to investors—told them that the company’s total revenue went up by just over 27% this spring compared to the same quarter last year, for a total of $684.9 million. “CoreCivic exceeded expectations in a period that included the government shutdown,” Swindle said, adding “This was accomplished in part by lowering operating costs” — meaning the business of detaining people is becoming cheaper — and because of more people being put in detention.

GEO Group CEO George Zoley, in his earnings report to investors, said that “thanks to 2025 contracts, total revenues are up to $732.1 million — an increase of nearly $96 million or 15% — over the same period last year.”

The earnings by the two companies were for the period from April through June of this year, so this is only a snapshot of the total picture that’s been developing since President Trump took office and enforcement efforts dramatically increased.

As noted in a previous column, a news article in The Washington Post indicated that arrests and detentions exceeded 43,000 in July, breaking the previous record set the month before and that in the past seven months the total number of detainees exceeded 238,000.

Not everyone arrested and put in a detention center remains there long term, although many do.

The trend, though, is a steady increase in those apprehended and then put into confinement.

Romo, in her story, pointed out that the earnings by CoreCivic “do not include net proceeds of $1.6 billion made by the company from the recent sale of four of their facilities to the Dept. of Homeland Security.”

“CoreCivic’s sales of detention centers to the government won’t be reflected until next quarter — but they are part of a larger strategy to meet President Trump’s goal of having 100,000 people in detention at once,” Romo said. “CoreCivic made a deal to continue operating the detention centers and also hopes to build more. Meanwhile, GEO Group says they’re also in talks to do the same.”

By way of comparison, the number of people held in immigration detention this past earnings quarter of April thru June was around 66,000.

While this is obviously a key revenue stream, it seems that not all of the money earned by these companies comes from housing detainees. Many of those affected by the stepped-up enforcement have ankle monitors that allow authorities to keep track of their whereabouts as well as smartwatches and the SmartLink phone app.

“In addition, money is made from transportation and flight contracts with the government, which went up in line with more deportations,” the news story noted.

The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that effectively ended the temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of Haitians, which the Administration has been pursing since coming into office, promises to add to this income source as many of these refugees have been fitted with ankle monitors after meeting with ICE officials.

The assumption would be that the monitors will aid governmental agents when the round-up begins and the refugees are sent back to Haiti. Others who are in the country under a protected status or immigrants here legally might very well find themselves wearing this bracelet.

“In addition, money is made by the companies from transportation and flight contracts with the government, which went up in line with more deportations,” the news story stated.

This increase in earnings by these two companies and presumably other vendors doing business with ICE is, of course, the result of current enforcement efforts, but they wouldn’t be as lucrative were it not for the additional money given to ICE by the Republican majority in Congress at the behest of the President.

As stated in another news story, “ICE’s budget has skyrocketed during President Trump’s second term, becoming the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency, with $85 billion now at its disposal. The windfall is thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted last July.”

Only ten years ago, the agency’s annual budget was less than $6 billion and has been around $10 billion for the past several years.

The NPR report also detailed ties that some current Administration officials involved in the enforcement effort have had with the two companies. In addition, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, claims that President Trump “has purchased financial stakes in the two private-prison companies.”

These personal ties between certain public officials and the companies contracted to perform services as well as the President purchasing their stocks do not appear to be violating any laws; after all, the manner in which the companies are earning their income is legal. Still, the appearance of profit guiding public policy, while not uncommon, is still unsightly.

But aside from all of this money talk, of larger concern should be the thousands of people who are being impacted—often in a dire manner—by the dramatic upswing in arrests, detentions, and deportations. The human toll, oftentimes the misery being inflicted, merits our attention and concern. As a matter of policy, the question remains as to whether or not the scope of this policy and the methods of its implementation are necessary and have a vital interest? We should ask ourselves as well if the guiding intention meets an ethical standard or one of compassion?

Steve Horton is a journalist & commentator from Michigan.

The above statement is based on earlier reports of Administration officials setting a high quota, with numbers being the main consideration rather that threats to the public.

Here is a summary of a news story in The Washington Post that I recently came across, detailing the stepped-up enforcement by ICE.

The headline read “July sees most ICE arrests of Trump’s second term.”

By way of background, there was much publicity early on in the Administration’s detention and deportment efforts, much of it due to the sending of troops to Los Angeles and then Minneapolis as well as other places to assist ICE (the anacronym for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) arresting people and, as many critics contended, to intimidate opponents of this policy.

In some of these mobilizations, the Administration contended that they were actually crime-prevention measures, done to address what officials alleged was out-of-control lawlessness in these cities. The fact that they were run by Democratic mayors and in blue states… well, coincidences do happen.

Ground zero in this approach turned out to be Minneapolis where a large number of residents, opposed to what was happening in their community, gathered for protests and also sought to protect those friends and neighbors (i.e. immigrants and/or Latinos) who were being targeted. The killings of two American citizens during those protests and the fallout, with many Americans across the country not approving of what was happening, resulted in a change in tactics and also leadership at the Dept. of Homeland Security.

But the overall effort, it seems, has remained, only now it’s being done with a more low-keyed, out-of-the-public-eye approach.

Even so, headlines of arrests and detentions continued, just not as sensational as they had been. Still, despite this seemingly more tepid strategy there have been lethal consequences during arrests and for detainees in the prisons.

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested more than 43,000 people in July, a rate that didn’t slow even as the federal agency came under scrutiny for shooting and killing two people in Houston and Maine in the span of six days,” wrote The Post reporter Emmanuel Martinez in his lead.

“July’s figure is the highest monthly total under the second Trump administration, surpassing last month’s previous high, according to ICE detainment data shared to Congress and reviewed by The Post,” the article pointed out, explaining that “The data shows the number of people ICE arrested and sent into detention facilities by month.”

As the article further noted “ICE officials shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araoujo in Houston on July 7, during a traffic stop. Six days later, on July 13, a second ICE officer fatally shot a man, Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, in Biddeford, Maine.”

ICE officials initially claimed that the two men were resisting arrest and officers responded with force when the men weaponized their vehicles. Witnesses at the scene have disputed these allegations.

As it turned out Araujo had lived in Texas for 35 years, had a family, and worked in construction. He was transporting fellow workers to a work site when confronted by agents. News reports noted that while he did not have legal permission to live in the country, he had begun applying for authorization and also that he did not have a criminal record.

Guerrero was a 25-year-old native of Colombia, who emigrated to the United States in 2023. He worked as a custodian and as a delivery driver. He was married and had a three-year-old daughter. It seems he was lawfully present in the United States, held a work permit, and had a Social Security number.

The deaths, in and of themselves, were tragic. Afterall, it is not a capital offense to be an immigrant—even an illegal one. But it seems that in both cases, the men were not the intended targets of the officers and had been stopped by mistake.

“Despite the two fatal shootings, ICE continued the heightened enforcement efforts it began in June,” wrote Marinez, adding that “Through July 12, ICE averaged 1,432 arrests a day. From then through the end of the month, the daily average increased to 1,450.”

As those who followed these two incidents may recall, White House Border Czar Tom Homan, said that the agency would cease doing traffic-stop arrests after the two shootings, but President Trump quickly reversed that decision.

The Post story stated that “Through the first seven months of the year, ICE has sent more than 238,000 people into detention facilities.”

Of course, that’s not necessary a safe place to be with two detainees dying in a New Jersey detention center recently—their deaths part of a larger pattern. Human Rights Watch pointed out that “Since January 2025, at least 52 people have died in ICE custody, marking the highest mortality rate in over a decade and more than double the rate of the previous year under the Biden administration.” Inadequate medical care and overcrowding have been cited as causes.

In fairness, people die in prison on a routine basis, but the question is whether this sort of detention, namely putting people in prison when arrested and doing so without trial or conviction, is an ethical policy. It’s a question deserving to be considered in a rational manner.

* * *

While the actions of ICE don’t seem to garner widespread attention except when someone is killed, the situation is being addressed by several U.S. Senators who are seeking a change in policy.

I received the following press release for Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin’s office. It reads as follow:

“U.S. Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), all members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, joined the Committee’s Democrats in sending a letter calling on Chairman Rand Paul to convene an oversight hearing on the Administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.

"Chairman Paul held a February 12 oversight hearing following the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti — two U.S. citizens killed by federal agents in Minneapolis in January. While administration officials have pledged to change policies and implement common sense reforms, it is clear that not enough is being done. DHS has doubled down and ramped up immigration enforcement operations — resulting in ICE agents fatally shooting Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston, Texas, on July 7 and Johan Sebastian Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, on July 13.

“Secretary Mullin has now had sufficient time in office to enact meaningful policy change... Furthermore, DHS has still not been forthcoming about what, if any, corrective actions have been taken related to the killings of Mr. Pretti and Ms. Good. In light of these facts, we call on you to immediately conduct oversight of DHS, including, as necessary, to issue a subpoena for records and information regarding their tactics and excessive use of force,” the Senators wrote.

“We call on you to hold a hearing with Administration officials, including Secretary Markwayne Mullin, White House Border Czar Tom Homan, ICE Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director David J. Venturella, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney S. Scott to explain why DHS has failed to implement meaningful reforms that could have prevented incidents like fatal shootings and reined in abusive and rampant immigration enforcement tactics,” the Senators concluded.

Senator Paul, as you probably know, has been preoccupied with what happened in 2020 when COVID first arrived on these shores, alleging that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, mishandled the situation and was deceptive in his statements and policies. That’s, of course, a whole different kettle of fish and will likely get a lot of publicity due to the election campaign. Whether he’ll respond to this request by his Senate colleagues remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, we’ll wait to see if the arrests by ICE in August break the previous record. That flippant remark aside, we pray that none of the arrests results in another unnecessary death.

Steve Horton is a journalist & commentator from Michigan.

But the ‘Weekend Edition’ show ends at 10 o’clock, a couple of hours before I’ve left the final copy at the final mailbox and—for some reason which I can’t explain—I don’t care for the game show ‘Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me’ that comes on afterwards. So, I switch to the musical entertainment.

It’s actually an oldies station, dubbing its offerings as “the legends of country.” Surprisingly, since I’ve never been an ardent fan, I know many of the songs. That’s a testament, I guess, to the power of this musical genre. Apparently, these classics have permeated the airwaves over the years to the extent that even a casual listener is familiar with many of the lyrics and melodies.

The station’s format is four songs in a row, then a break for several commercials. There are a couple of Lansing car dealers who’ve purchased a goodly amount of advertising time as their ads are on nearly every break. If you’re from the area then you’d know who they are by their respective slogans “See ya in a Kia” and “If we make a buck, it’s sheer luck.” There’s also a lot of hawking done by a shoe store that promises miraculous results for sore and tired feet.

So, the political attack ad—aimed at one of the candidates running in the 7^th Congressional District race on the Democratic side of the ballot—was somewhat jarring. I say that well aware people who watch TV have been exposed to a steady diet—an onslaught if you will—of negative messages targeting the myriad of candidates running in the various contested primary races now going on in Michigan. For them it’s likely become a viewing norm.

I, on the other hand, don’t watch TV, except once in awhile during the football season or if I’m a guest at a family gathering and the tube is on. I realize this makes me somewhat uninformed on the latest entertainment and even cultural trends; however, I always have social media to help fill in the some of the blanks. Admittedly, there’s a lot of stuff being broadcast (or streamed) that I’m ignorant of, yet somehow I muddle along. Another situation where ignorance is bliss?

The attack ad didn’t change my mind in any manner regarding this particular candidate. I’d already read enough news articles regarding the race, coupled with my historical knowledge of the political situation to have formed an opinion.

I assume negative political advertising—the constant barrage that litters the airwaves and also (understandably) makes television station owners happy campers—does influence voters; otherwise, it wouldn’t be the weapon-of-choice in so many campaigns. ‘The lesser of two evils’ seems to be how many voters make their decision on who to vote for.

As the owner of a weekly newspaper, the advertising we receive is mainly from the county and local races where more than one candidate is seeking a particular office. I don’t recall any of them in the past—and none during the current campaign—attacking someone in a specific manner.

I also provide candidates the opportunity, free of charge, to submit a statement on ‘why they are running for office’ and ‘what they hope to accomplish if elected or reelected—what would their priorities and goals be?’ These are published the week prior to the election date.

The submissions are usually thoughtful in response and detailed enough to give the reader a glimpse of the candidate as a person and what they stand for. This information, coupled with what a voter already knows, hopefully serves as a useful aid in their decision-making.

Of course, for this hope to be realized, a person who’s received the newspaper has to take the time to read the submissions and do so with an open mind. Truth be told, this might not always be the case.

Before the rise of TV and its grip on attention, circa 1950s, political parties used to run ads in newspapers promoting their national and statewide ticket as did individual candidates. But those days are gone.

I think a newspaper, coming out once-a-day or (or as in my case) once-a-week, steers the advertising message in a more positive direction whereas the immediacy of TV and radio—but certainly TV—is a more useful medium for the repetitious attack ads.

In making this statement, I’m leaving out the important role that postcards and pamphlets—mailed as well as hand delivered—have played in getting a candidate’s message out, along with the stump speech that often gets reported as news. These printed and verbal communications can be either positive or negative or a combination of both.

Nowadays, there’s the added marketing tools of emails, social-media ads, and partisan podcasts.

All of this new media and the still powerful role of traditional television might make one think the print newspaper has become an obsolete or at least esoteric medium for conveying a message. And maybe that’s true to an extent.

Still, us ink-stained wretches have an important role to play during the election season and that is mainly at the local level. This venue includes the races for the state House and Senate, the county elected offices and judicial seats, and the contests for the school board, village council and township board seats.

The office-seekers as well as incumbents still use us to announce their candidacies and explain their positions, they are still happy when we take their photo at a parade or special event, and they see us as an effective and affordable means via advertising to reach a large swath of voters, albeit not the only means.

As part of the overall coverage, newspapers are also reporting on the various issues that candidates are talking about or taking positions on. In many instances, these issues predate the campaign and remain relevant afterwards.

I offer this overview as the current Michigan Primary comes to an end this Tuesday (August 4) and then segues after a couple of deep breaths into the General Election.

Given the contested races for the statewide races for Governor and the U.S. Senate as well as the 7th Congressional District, I’m guessing I’ll hear a few more political attack ads when I tune into the county-music station on Saturdays; however, I’ll be doing so while delivering a newspaper with campaign messages that I trust will have a more positive approach, along with articles on the candidates and issues that seek to be informative.

Steve Horton is a journalist & commentator from Michigan.

It’s not that the average ‘Joe’ or ‘Jane’ can’t pay attention to a campaign while doing those other things, not to mention spending time on their respective daily routines; it’s just that they’re not as focused as they might otherwise be.

In my neck-of-the-woods (Livingston County specifically and mid-Michigan in general) there are two contested primary races: one being for a judgeship on the Livingston County Circuit Court that has five candidates—four of whom who have been quite active—and the Democratic Party nomination for the 7^th District U.S. House seat that has three candidates.

The judicial race is on the non-partisan ballot and, as mentioned, the top two vote-getters will advance to the General Election. The four active candidates are: Andrea Banfield, Christopher Candela, Mark Gatesman, and Kristina Lyke. I’ve met all four, although I know Lyke a little better as she ran for the area’s Michigan House seat two years ago and I’ve had various interactions with her between then and now.

When I say ‘I’ve met all four’, it’s from their having contacted our office to place an announcement of their candidacy in the newspaper earlier this year and more recently, purchasing ads. Also, when they’ve been to a local event, like our recent 4^th of July celebration, I’ve taken a photo to put in the paper.

Otherwise, I haven’t any knowledge of their past careers as attorneys or, with a couple of them, their background of working in a prosecutor’s office nor their standing (as in popularity) with county voters. As far as I know polling is not done at the local level, so the outcome will be (for me) an unknown until Election Night when the votes are tallied.

As for the three Democrats in the Congressional race—Bridget Brink, William Lawrence, and Matt Maasdam —none of them have brought their campaigns to our small community. Which is understandable, given its small population and a well-known history of supporting Republicans. Most of their respective efforts seem to be centered on TV and social media advertising, along with doing interviews with the major media outlets in the district.

That, of course, has become the norm for these larger races. The candidates still do the door-to-door, shake hands at area events, and litter the countryside with yard signs; however, the bulk of the money raised is spent on television and the internet sound bites.

As for the front-runner in this contest, there has been polling done and, at the moment, it appears Brink and Lawrence are the front-runners, with Maasdam being third. However, Maasdam’s effort got a boost with an endorsement this past week from U.S. Senator Elisa Slotkin. The reports I’ve read predict that the traditional left-of-center and moderate voters will split their ballots enough between Brink and Maasdam to give the plurality to Lawrence, who is the favorite among what’s called the Progressive wing of the party.

Zach Gorchow, the president of Gongwer News Service’s Lansing Bureau, wrote a column on the Slotkin endorsement, finding her timing a bit odd given its lateness in the election cycle and (what he felt) was the unlikelihood that it will propel Maasdam to the forefront. His assessment was that it’ll probably help Lawrence due to the ballot-splitting between the other two. He also suggested that backing a losing candidate might not burnish the Senator’s credentials as a national figure in the party.

Well, having watched the Senator since her arrival on the scene as a Congressional candidate in 2018 and interacted with her several times when she visited Fowlerville, I’d never underestimate Slotkin. But my guess is that Gorchow has a reliable finger-on-the-pulse and, given the enthusiasm of Progressive voters, Lawrence will be the nominee.

If so, then the Republican incumbent, Tom Barrett, and his supporters will be quick to label him a ‘socialist’ or—since President Trump and the many in the GOP have already embraced this extreme in name calling—a ‘communist.’

Welcome back to the McCarthy era.

Whether this proves to be an effective strategy depends, as is often the case in these toss-up Michigan races, on the choices of the independent voters—some of whom lean left, others who lean right, and more-than-a-few who vote according to their ‘here and ‘now’ concerns.

There are a lot of folks suffering from cost-of-living increases in their household budget, with the dramatic gas hike leading the way. Likewise, for many small businesses who see expenses rising faster than revenues. If these Independents vote on their pocketbook situation, then Democratic candidates—regardless of how you label them—should fare well. If the Republicans can interject ‘culture war’ concerns or somehow ‘scare’ voters about Democratic Party control of Congress, then perhaps Barrett can hold onto his seat, along with other GOPers in toss-up districts.

Of course, I haven’t talked about the contested Democratic Primary race for the vacant U.S. Senate seat between Abul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens and the two-man race between John James and Perry Johnson on the Republican side in the Michigan Governor’s race—both of which are garnering the bulk of headlines and voter interest. I’ll leave that speculation to the larger, statewide media outlets.

The elephant-in-the room, I should add, is President Trump’s effort to pass his SAVE Act that, if successful, would alter how the election is administered for federal offices, coupled with his Administration’s threats aimed at state and local election officials concerning non-citizen voting and the specter of armed troops being sent to polling places under of the guise of a national emergency.

Everything occurring during the current Michigan Primary would be considered as normal. At least that’s my view. I hope I can make the same declaration concerning the General Election and, more importantly, what happens after the polls close on Election Day.

Steve Horton is a journalist and commentator from Mid-Michigan.

On July 8th, one of the offerings was a report that the U.S. Dept. of Justice is threatening Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson with a criminal investigation regarding Michigan’s voter rolls. The report was written by Elena Durnbaugh and noted that “The DOJ sent a letter to Benson, signed by U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, informing her that if Michigan failed to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls, she would be in violation of federal law.

“Any election officer, including the chief election officer of the state, who knowingly retains noncitizens on the state’s SVRL or facilitates noncitizens in receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability. An intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens could also constitute a violation,” Dhillon wrote. “We encourage you to contact us to discuss what steps your state should take to maintain clean voters lists as required by law.”

As the report pointed out, this comes on the heels of a Court of Appeals decision last month that ruled Michigan and 30 other states did not have to turn over their unredacted voter rolls to the Department of Justice as had been requested.

The U.S. Constitution gives the duty of conducting elections, including those for federal office, to the states, not the federal government and these states felt this request was part of an effort by the current Administration to exert control over the process—federalizing elections, if you will.

It also comes alongside an announcement earlier in the week that the DOJ would be deploying election monitors to three cities in Michigan, including Lansing, East Lansing and Detroit. All three are, of course, Democratic Party strongholds and Lansing and East Lansing are in the important 7th Congressional District race that might help decide which party controls the U.S. House.

I guess, if first you don’t succeed in an attempt to control elections, try again… only now with threats to the state’s chief election officer and possible intimidation of certain voters.

All of this is occurring in the context of the President pleading with and at times threating Republicans in Congress to pass the ‘Save America Act’ that, if passed, would likely disenfranchise a wide swath of otherwise elibible voters. Presumably, the swath would be done in such a manner as to aid Republicans and hinder Democrats.

It’s being portrayed as better guaranteeing election integrity with required voter ID. As is often the case, it’s putting lipstick on the pig and, a look at the details, paints a different picture.

Needless to say, the Secretary of State (who as most of you know is a Democratic Party candidate for governor) is not taking the threat in a meek fashion.

The Gongwer News Service article included a comment from Angela Benander, chief communications officer for Benson, that stated “If the Department of Justice needs assistance addressing any confusion regarding how Michigan handles its voter list maintenance, the Department of State is willing to provide support.

“Michigan has one of the most effective voter list maintenance processes in the nation, going above and beyond the NVRA standard,” she said in a statement. “We’ve also been clear that we have to do this work carefully, in accordance with state and federal law, to ensure no voter is disenfranchised.”

Benander (according to the article) highlighted that the Department of State has been transparent with the DOJ about its work to ensure only eligible citizens can vote, noting responses to DOJ’s previous inquires, congressional testimony, testimony and evidence in federal court, public statements and detailed information that is publicly available on Michigan’s Department of State website.

So, the battle lines are drawn. On one side, the bloody flag being waved that alleges noncitizens (i.e. illegal immigrants) are not only voting but doing so in large enough numbers as to sway outcomes and on the other side, the continued effort to allow all eligible voters to cast ballots in an easy and convenient manner by reducing obstacles.

The ‘Right to Vote’ without undue hinderance and devoid of discrimination against certain segments of the population has long been a cause I believe in and have previously supported in my commentary. I understand the need for safeguards; however, history shows that these so-called safeguards are often less about vetting and more about suppression. When examining how these legal requirements are to be implemented, the devil, as they say, is in the details. What seems benign at first glance, can have a more sinister intent.

So, once again, we have the latest installment in this long struggle. Only now it’s taking place in Michigan.

Steve Horton is a journalist and commentator from Michigan.

I had a brief conversation with Schwarz, not in Battle Creek which is close to Hastings where I lived for many years, but in Traverse City where we had gone for a weekend getaway. He was there for a campaign appearance of John McCain who was running for the Republican presidential nomination, serving (as I recall) as head of the Senator’s Michigan effort. Learning of the planned visit, my wife and I decided to attend. Recognizing Schwarz, I went over and introduced myself.

This was in February of 2000.

I wrote a report of McCain’s appearance and then included parts of it for another column I did in 2018 later, composing it shortly after McCain had passed away. I’ve crossed paths with several Congressmen and women as well as Michigan legislators over the years, both reporting on them and having conversations. Given Schwarz’s record as a public servant and his willingness to be an independent—akin to Senator McCain—I wish I’d had more opportunities to include him on that list other that those few moments of pleasantries.

Anyway, this is the column I wrote.

* * *

I Shook John McCain’s Hand

It was just over 18 years ago—Feb. 21, 2000 to be exact—that I shook John McCain’s hand. So far, he’s the most famous person to have had that honor.

The occasion was during McCain’s campaign appearance in Traverse City when he was going head-to-head with George W. Bush for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Bush, who had been governor of Texas and the eldest son of former president, George H. Bush, was the favorite, but McCain, the maverick senator from Arizona, had scored an upset in the New Hampshire Primary earlier in the month and was the main challenger. McCain, while touring that state, had called his campaign the ‘Straight Talk Express’.

The Michigan Republican Party, anticipating that the party nomination would draw a number of candidates, had scheduled a Presidential Primary for Tuesday, Feb. 22. However, the next big battleground after New Hampshire was the South Carolina and that was being held on Saturday, Feb. 19. With the candidates having spent most their time in this key southern state, it turned out that Michigan was only going to be in the national spotlight for a couple of days.

During the South Carolina Primary, the Bush campaign, along with the local party establishment who supported his candidacy, had proven to be formidable. McCain faced some severely negative ads and was handily beaten. Michigan was turning out to be a ‘do or die’ state for him.

My wife and I had scheduled a three-day get-away vacation to Traverse City and, upon arriving at the Holiday Inn on Sunday afternoon, I learned that McCain was going to appear at the Park Place Hotel, in its dome, the following morning at eight o’clock.

So, we decided to attend.

The large, circular room—which had accommodated the Cherryland Playhouse for many years and was then being used as a conference center—was packed. Nearly all of the seats were taken, and it was standing-room only in the back of the room. However, being lucky, I spotted two vacant chairs on the back wall and commandeered them. Due to all of the people standing in front of us, we’d have seen nothing had we sat in them. Instead, we used them to stand on and enjoyed a fine view of the proceedings.

It was a town-hall style session that lasted about an hour, with McCain offering remarks and taking questions from the audience. When it ended, some of the people crowded around the candidate (who was accompanied by his wife, Cindy) or were heading out of the main doors to their parked cars.

I sought to get close enough during the next half-hour that the McCain’s remained on the stage, with the goal of shaking his hand. But to no avail.

Thwarted in this effort, I resorted to my next option and headed to the main lobby.

Being familiar with the lay-out of the hotel from having spent a few evenings at the lounge in earlier years when I was single and living in the city, my hunch was that the vehicle transporting the candidate and his entourage to the next stop would be in the parking lot to the west of the lobby. To get there and avoid the crowd, they’d need to go through the lobby.

Sure enough, a few minutes later McCain, his wife Cindy, and others in the traveling party came down the hallway towards us. And there I was, along with Dawn, our hands outstretched. “Good luck, Senator,” I said. A few seconds and the encounter was over.

Later that week, back to work, I wrote an account of the event and published it in the News & Views.

As things would unfold, McCain won the Michigan Primary. However, a couple of weeks later he did not do well in the Super Tuesday Primary, losing to Bush in those states. The next day, on March 9, with those results having rendered their verdict, he ended his campaign and returned his attention to the U.S. Senate.

As we know, he got a second chance at the GOP nomination eight years later and won his party’s nod. He then lost to Senator Barack Obama in the General Election and, once more, re-directed his energies to the Senate.

SENATOR McCAIN HAD BEEN IN THE NEWS HEADLINES off and on during the past couple of years for two main reasons. One was his opposition to President Donald Trump on a number of policy issues as well as his criticism directed at some of the President’s statements (or more often his Tweets). The other was his being diagnosed with a deadly form of brain cancer a year ago—in July of 2017.

Senator McCain, after learning of his disease, began treatment, but also continued (when he could) his duties as a legislator and as a national spokesman, including serving as the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. While he was always, if you will, a straight talker on many issues—hence his reputation as a maverick politician—with his life nearly at its end, he became more pointed in his assessments and judgments—a fact that President Trump and his diehard supporters did not appreciate.

Last August 25^th, McCain passed away.

There have been a number of tributes as well as journalistic assessments that have occurred since then. They will continue through his funeral. Then life, as it always does, will go on and the memory of the late senator—his words and deeds—will fade; his place in the public arena filled by someone else.

McCain’s legacy—his place in the history books—will include his long tenure as a United States Senator from 1987 until his death, his efforts to reach agreements across the aisle with Democratic lawmakers and being the Republican standard-bearer in the 2008 Presidential Campaign. But it will also encompass another central part of his life and reason for his reputation—namely that he was a prisoner during the Vietnam War.

In my column from February 2000, I wrote:

“McCain, in case you’re unaware, was a pilot flying missions over North Vietnam during that war when his plane was shot down in 1967 by a missile and he was fished out of a lake with a broken arm and leg and made a prisoner of war for the next five years. That event, in and of itself, was a result of battle: he was luckier than those who died and less fortunate than most who returned home physically unscathed.

“What’s made him the stuff of heroic legend—told and confirmed by his fellow prisoners at what they called the “Hanoi Hilton”—was the courage and fortitude he displayed during captivity, facing hardships and tortures and being tempted with early release. The son of an admiral, the young McCain (a Naval officer) did not break nor succumb. He explained in an earlier campaign interview about the matter, “I knew I’d eventually have to look my old man in the eye.”

Some 33 years later that background adds much credibility, as far as his many supporters are concerned, to his maverick stance with the GOP hierarchy and his blunt, straight-talk message of campaign finance and governmental reform.”

Much of the rest of my report offered background on what was happening in the Republican campaign, the outcome of the Michigan Primary which was known by the time the article was written, and an overview of the statements made by McCain at the Traverse City venue.

But I concluded my article with these thoughts:

“I’d wondered during the town meeting if McCain, living year after year in the Spartan conditions of that prison, tormented by his captors, apparently roughed up at times, tempted with an early release ahead of other American prisoners, could have ever imagined that he’d one day be running for the highest office of the land.

“Whether or not he wins the GOP nomination or this high office, I wanted to shake his hand. Not because he might become President, but because of what he endured in that prison cell and how he conducted himself.

“Our involvement in the Vietnam War still stirs much emotional debate and judgment. But if we look beyond that, what we see in McCain’s example is solitary courage: when someone, alone and worn down, facing the threat of pain or death, still remained loyal to his code... “When it became too much to stand, even that couldn’t break him.”

“I wanted to shake John McCain’s hand because you don’t often get to look a man like that “in the eye”.”

All these years later, re-reading after this assessment, I wouldn’t change a word. John McCain was certainly not a perfect man. And not every statement he made or position he took was one that I thought prudent or could support. As a longtime politician and in his subsequent campaign as a presidential nominee, he no doubt cut a few corners and hedged a few bets. Still, overall, he remained loyal to his personal code and made service to his country a lifelong priority.

What constitutes being a hero or acting heroic? I don’t have any precise definition, except that most of us, at some point or other in our life, face adversity or find ourselves in challenging, even threatening circumstances. How we react to this adversity, challenge, or threat—whether good or ill, morally or less so, with fortitude and determination or casting blame on others—ultimately determines ‘who we are’ and ‘what we believe’ and ‘what really matters to us’.

Being a prisoner-of-war or being faced with adversity does not make you a hero. But how you respond does. At the Hanoi Hilton and then many years later, with his death only a matter of weeks away, John McCain did not disappoint. He had courage and grit.

It was just over 18 years ago—Feb. 21, 2000 to be exact—that I shook John McCain’s hand. It was the hand of a hero.

* * *

Steve Horton is a journalist & commentator from Michigan

I came across this column, written by yours truly in December of 2015, pertaining to the issue of the ‘Separation of Church & State’ and how it was becoming part of the presidential campaign then getting underway. Well, alas, it’s still with us. Christian nationalism, which is an exclusive approach rather than an embracive one, the effort by those in governmental power to portray history to fit this political and cultural template, are now very much a part of our current discourse. Citizenship, assistance to those in need, the right of representation are spin-offs or go hand-in-glove with this differing view of ‘who we are as a nation’. There are many more.

* * *

Letter-to-Editor Writers Weigh in on Separation of Church & State Issue

December 7, 2015

Over the past few weeks, three of our ‘Fowlerville News & Views’ readers have weighed in on the issue of religious freedom as it pertains to government and, more specifically, public schools. This topic is more familiarly called ‘Separation of Church and State.’

A student bringing a Bible or Koran or some other text sacred to them, or expressing opinions based on their beliefs (and citing that text to support their position) would seem an exercise in religious freedom as well as free speech. A teacher or administrator doing that in a public school—as a paid employee of government (i.e. the school district)—causes a different consideration.

While the adult, like the student, is entitled to his or her belief and right of free speech, doing so from a position of governmental authority and power has been judged by the courts to fall within the realm of an endorsement or sponsorship, thus a violation of the First Amendment.

No everyone likes that judicial interpretation, or the concept of a wall of separation, thus the ongoing debate.

The context of the speech or religious display, of course, plays a part. Presumably, given the make-up of our society, an educator espousing a Christian viewpoint, would be applauded by many people. However, were that person championing another religion, for example, Buddhism or Wiccan, a goodly number of those same folks would likely object.

Since an educator, in either case, possesses the same right of expression, and since government is not supposed to create an established religion by supporting one creed over other ones, the question arises: Is it better to have a continuous turmoil over this issue, or have our schools stick with teaching kids how to read, write, and calculate and leave religious matters to the family and church?

Yet schools as well as other realms of government are not islands unto themselves, but part of the larger society and culture. And religion, in particular Christianity, is part of our society and culture. Hence, we will likely continue having these debates; gray areas where many people prefer (or only see) a white-and-black demarcation.

Two of the Letter-to-the-Editor writers delved into the historical record on the issue of ‘Separation of Church and State.’ They offered their interpretations based on that record, with their viewpoints and conclusions being a bit different.

I enjoyed the exchange of letters: first, because it offered information and detail that helped to better inform me, and second, the tone was civil and thoughtful. I’m tired of the shouting heads who try to dominate every discussion on public policy or social belief, and am weary of those who think that insults and attacks on character are an adequate substitute for logical reasoning.

Inspired by their effort, I did my own research on the ‘Separation’ issue and have a better understanding of the historical record cited by those who feel government is supposed to be neutral on religious matters and by those who feel the country was founded on Christian principles and that this Christianity ought to be allowed, without hindrance, in our schools, in our other governmental institutions and activities, and presumably in our laws.

Statements by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, along with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin are part of the record, but so too are others who hammered out the Constitution and, more importantly, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Rogers Williams and his founding of Providence Plantation in what became Rhode Island is an important part of the history, as is Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797 during the administration of John Adams and ratified by the United States Senate.

What I found quite interesting in my research (because I was more familiar with it) are excerpts from a major speech that presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave during the 1960 campaign to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a Protestant organization, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church; of whether his allegiance would be to the United States or the Pope. Kennedy decided to go into the lion’s den (so to speak) and address those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.

The speech was among the highlights of the campaign and, after he was assassinated, it became part of the Kennedy legend.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

. . . I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

Fifty-five years later, in the midst of another presidential campaign, the issue of religious loyalty is once more front and center, only now it involves Americans who take Islam as their faith and who regard the Koran as their sacred book. Their allegiance to an authority or law other than the United States and the Constitution is being questioned, just as Kennedy’s was.

* * *

Steve Horton is a journalist and commentator from Michigan.

For the most part, they were oblivious to me, the older kids busy running around the house, playing with each other, griped by the excitement, while the babies—when not feeding from a bottle—looked about the room and crowd of people, soaking up all the sights and sounds that will become impressions and eventually help inform their evolving awareness.

My impending birthday, coming this July, will be number 75. It seems I’ve managed to make it around-the-block a few times, much to my amazement, the most amazing being that I didn’t realize the speed in which it would happen. But here I was, snacking on tacos and then a piece of the birthday cake, one of the old folks present—having replaced my parents and before that my grandparents in this role of family elder.

Ah yes, that thing called ‘torch passing.’ First heard by me at the tender age of nine-and-a-half when a then young president used it as a metaphor for the transition of leadership from one generation to the next. Then, about a decade later, having taken the flaming baton and headed off at full speed towards the adventure of life and living. And now, all these years later, having moved a bit off-stage both family-wise and career-wise, still “fretting my lines,” but without the command of audience or stage presence that a younger self once had—or imagined he did.

But “old age still has it uses”.

While at the party, I held Madalyn for a time, seeking to establish the bonds of affection as I’d done with her sister, that will (I hope) imprint me as a caring grandfather where trust can be placed.

As for the career, well let’s trust there is still some usefulness left there as well.

In my case, this centers on the reporting of the news-of-the day at the local level but also the larger arena—sustained by the quaint notion that an independent press helps maintain a free and cohesive citizenry. Yet, it includes the tool of commentary as well, employing ‘the grave compulsive word’ for the task of observation and reflection. Through this tool, current events and the intricacies of the world are examined, the heritage of our history can be put forth for discussion, and the notion of a society underpinned by the expectation and practice of ethical behavior is given credence.

Metaphorically speaking, the torch I saw long ago, and have sought to carry forth, had message of compassion and fairmindedness and an illuminating light that embraced “all of us, everyone.”

* * *

Steve Horton is a journalist and commentator, based in Michigan.

* * *

Slotkin Statement on Vote to Block Offensive Weapons Transfers to Israel

WASHINGTON, D.C. -U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin released the following statement after voting to block offensive weapons to Israel:

“Today, I voted to block the provision of U.S. military assistance to Israel: 1,000-pound so-called ‘dumb’ bombs and military bulldozers. In the future, I will continue to assess U.S.-funded offensive weapons to Israel on a case-by-case basis, and I will continue to support sending Israel much-needed defensive weapons, like Iron Dome.

“I have struggled with these Joint Resolutions of Disapproval as much as any vote since I joined Congress. I represent a state with a large Arab and Muslim population and a large Jewish population. And over these last two-plus years, few issues have been as raw, painful, and personal as this one. Throughout that time, I have worked hard to call balls and strikes based on my experience and the facts on the ground, even when some are reluctant to consider new information.

“My entire life, I have been -- and continue to be -- a strong supporter of a Jewish and democratic State of Israel. The people of Israel, like all people throughout the region, deserve long-term security and peace. But being pro-Israel today is not about simply supporting the political or military agenda of Prime Minister Netanyahu, just like being pro-American should not be equated with loyalty to President Trump.

“This is a complex truth that many of us who support Israel hold, and it applies to my own patriotism and government as well. I can support the security of a country without supporting the specific policies of any one political party or leader. And if Israelis can take part in rigorous debate and protests of their own government’s policies, Americans supportive of Israel can do the same thing.

“I have no love lost for the Iranian regime or their proxy groups like Hezbollah. I know firsthand from three tours in Iraq alongside our military how Iran is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands more civilians in the Middle East.

“But President Trump committed the U.S. to a war of choice against Iran, alongside Israel, with no evidence of an imminent threat, no clear objectives, and without Congressional approval. Seven weeks in, he has yet to provide a strategy for this war or a clear path to get out of it.

“So just as I am against more U.S.-funded weapons to Israel today, I am also deeply skeptical of more U.S. funding for the Iran war, which reportedly could be anywhere between $50 to $200 billion, on top of $1 trillion provided to the Pentagon last year.

“Every American should be invested in the U.S. ending this war with the least possible loss of blood and treasure. It is my hope that we can get a comprehensive and durable ceasefire as soon as possible.”

Important Background:

• Slotkin previously released a statement urging the Administration to expand the ceasefire to include Lebanon.

• The U.S. has blocked weapons aid to U.S. allies and partners several times in recent years over policy disagreements, including Thailand in 2014, Pakistan in 2018, and seven times with Egypt between 2013 and 2025.

• The military assistance under consideration today is part of a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel signed by President Obama in September 2016, which committed the United States to provide Israel $38 billion in military aid over ten years.

All of this so-called ‘election reform’ is reminiscent of the ‘good old days when there were literacy tests and poll taxes designed to keep the poor folks and people of color from voting— and if that failed, the threat of violence.

President Trump, as many of you likely know, issued at executive order earlier this week that would, amongst other things, restrict mail-in voting and create a nationwide list of eligible voters that would allow federal authorities to monitor what is done in the states. Of course, there’s this document called the U.S. Constitution that grants the authority to run elections to the states.

The historical irony is that states, namely those in the Deep South, were once the skilled practitioners of voter suppression and Congress needed to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to end their discriminatory practices. Now the shoe, sort of speak, is on the other foot.

Rather than write a column on the matter, I felt this article from Gongwer News Service adequately outlines the current situation and the response of Michigan officials, namely Democrats, to the situation. With the midterm elections fast approaching and control of Congress at stake, as well as statehouses, the waters are being muddied and attempts to both limit and protect ‘the Right to Vote’ a literal tug-of-war.

—Steve Horton

* * *

Dems vow to fight Trump executive order on mail-in ballots

By Nick Smith- Gongwer News Service

Key Points

• Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to take legal action against Trump’s executive order

• Trump’s order restricts mail-in voting and creates nationwide list of eligible voters

• Trump’s order requires federal funding to be withheld from non-compliant states

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson promised legal action against President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday night (March 31) after the president signed an executive order earlier that day that would restrict mail-in voting and create a nationwide list of eligible voters.

Fellow Michigan Democratic officials condemned Trump’s order, calling it illegal, and voiced support for efforts to block it in the courts.

“This executive order is illegal on its face. States run elections, not the president,” Benson said in a statement.

“The president couldn’t convince Congress to pass his disastrous voter suppression bill, so he’s resorted to this.”

Trump’s executive order would require the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to work on compiling a list of eligible voters in each state and ban the U.S. Postal Service from sending absentee ballots to individuals not on a state’s list.

The order also includes provisions for ballots to contain certain bar codes for tracking as well as withholding federal funding from states or local governments refusing to comply.

Election experts quickly said Trump’s order is likely illegal, citing the U.S. Constitution, which states that the “Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

Benson vowed to quickly fight the order in court.

“This order will only make it harder for eligible Michigan citizens to vote and will create chaos at every step of the election process,” Benson said. “The truth is that our elections are already secure. By ordering the DOJ to target state and local election officials, this administration is coming after hardworking local public servants for doing their jobs safeguarding democracy. It is meant to sow fear, confusion, and doubt among voters.”

Trump’s order comes after the SAVE Act has stalled in the U.S. Senate. The SAVE Act would require people to provide proof of citizenship, including REAL ID, when registering to vote in federal elections.

For years, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and issues with mail-in voting, despite voter fraud being extremely rare.

Some fraudulent activity has been discovered in Michigan, one example being that the state found that 16 non-citizens cast ballots in Michigan in the November 2024 election. This drew condemnation from Republicans, who have supported the changes to voting put forward the president.

Attorney General Dana Nessel ripped Trump’s order, calling it unlawful and pledged to continue fighting the administration in court.

“President Trump, in his unrelenting quest to federalize elections, has issued yet another unlawful executive order attempting to usurp the states’ authority and responsibility to run free and fair elections based on flagrant fallacies and debunked conspiracy theories,” Nessel said in a statement. “This power is not the president’s to give. The Constitution is clear: the president cannot direct or control our state voting laws, and no scribble of his sharpie can give him the authority that he so desperately seeks.”

Democratic Governors Association President Gov. Andy Beshear and DGA Vice President Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, in a joint statement, said Democratic governors will push back on the latest order.

“States, not the president, run and administer elections in this country,” the two said. “Donald Trump knows that his cost hikes and health care cuts are going to lose him a whole bunch of races in November – and that’s why he’s fighting at every turn to make it harder for Americans to cast their ballot. Democratic governors will always stand up to protect our states and the fundamental right to vote – especially in the face of these ongoing attacks and dangerous federal overreach.”

Ten years ago, more so than now, posting on Facebook reached an audience of friends and family along with others who saw your timeline that seemed to promise an impact. As a newspaper journalist I already had the readers of my weekly newspaper. As a commentator, seeking to persuade and influence current affairs—a long-held ambition—this social-media platform seemed a promising opportunity to expand the reach.

A decade ago, amongst other things, was the start of another presidential campaign. I’d been through a few already, only this one seemed alarming (at least to me) with the arrival of Donald Trump as a Republican candidate—what he was saying and how the GOP faithful were embracing his harsh rhetoric and divisive approach.

This post that I wrote, probably rather quickly, was done on this date in 2016. As is my oft-times writing technique, I approached the issue-at-hand, my concern and the ensuing point of view, in a meandering fashion. In fact, when it appeared on my smartphone today, I though it merely an ode to daily living, inspired by the arrival of another spring and seeking to make daily routines, in this case the delivery of the newspaper, more profound than they deserved.

But then the squirrel arrived in the narrative, and I was reminded of the purpose of this piece writing. And pleasantly pleased. I was standing guard back then, even after a long day of work.

Still, despite this FB post and other commentaries I wrote that year in an effort to raise the alarm, Trump was elected, served for years, and after the Biden interlude, was returned to office again in November of 2024. While what I wrote ten years ago might be viewed as a testament of foresight—namely my concerns on how he would govern and how (what I saw as a darker vision) would alter the political and more importantly cultural landscape—the verdict is that I had little, in any, impact.

But still I write, buoyed by the support of readers and the actions of like-minded citizens, yet respectful of those friends and acquaintances who harbor a different view, who do not see the President in the same light as I do. In the end, the hope is, on my part, that this will pass and a shared vision illuminated by a brighter light will emerge.

* * *

REFLECTIONS ON THIS SATURDAY AFTERNOON

Had a pretty decent Saturday. After delivering the Fowlerville News & Views to the carriers, who, in turn, distribute it to the hinterlands of rural Fowlerville. And after delivering these eagerly anticipated copies to stores and public places in Webberville, Williamston, Howell, and the Village of Fowlerville, with a good deal of help from wife and son, I arrived back home.

I pulled out a rocker from the garage and sat in the sunny part of the lawn, drank a beer, and enjoyed this spring-like afternoon.

We have a bird feeder, and I watched the various birds coming to partake of this bounty. However, they’re a flighty bunch. The least little hint of trouble, and our feathered brethren take off for a nearby branch, then wait to see if the coast is clear. Interestingly, the birds include the usual English Sparrows but also Mourning Doves and other unlikely birds of a feather. I was impressed by their instantaneous reflex to flee at any hint of danger, but also the equilibrium that exists between the species that allowed them to share this common ground. Live and let live as the overriding philosophy.

I kept an eye out to see if any raptors were about. Fortunately, none were in sight. Although I do not begrudge their role in the ecology, on this balmy day, full of life and all its wonderful possibilities, I did not wish to witness this hard fact firsthand.

But then the harmony was suddenly disrupted by the arrival of a squirrel, intent to feast on the available bounty. Needless to say, the birds for whom the seeds were intended, fled. I attempted to convince the squirrel that his opportunistic behavior and suspect manners, his bullying attitude, were not appreciated. Alas, my efforts had little effect. The squirrel did not care about the birds or the fact that the seed was intended for them. Nor did he seem to care about my opinion or the equilibrium that had been disputed. It seemed that all he cared about was his appetite. Having seen him in action, I have decided to call him Trump.

There are certain rules of engagement and codes of conduct we have followed; respectful behavior and manners that keep the equilibrium intact. While we might not be the same bird of a feather, we attempt to share the feeder. However, every now and then an opportunistic squirrel shows up to threaten the long-standing balance.

I yelled at the squirrel and successfully scared him off. Even so, I know he’ll be back when I’m not around. As for the real Trump, he seems to be more persistent.

* * *

Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist & commentator.

A decade ago, amongst other things, was the start of another presidential campaign. I’d been through a few already, only this one seemed alarming (at least to me) with the arrival of Donald Trump as a Republican candidate—what he was saying and how the GOP faithful were embracing his harsh rhetoric and divisive approach.

This post that I wrote, probably rather quickly, was done on this date in 2016. As is my oft-times writing technique, I approached the issue-at-hand, my concern and the ensuing point of view, in a meandering fashion. In fact, when it appeared on my smartphone today, I though it merely an ode to daily living, inspired by the arrival of another spring and seeking to make daily routines, in this case the delivery of the newspaper, more profound than they deserved.

But then the squirrel arrived in the narrative, and I was reminded of the purpose of this piece writing. And pleasantly pleased. I was standing guard back then, even after a long day of work.

Still, despite this FB post and other commentaries I wrote that year in an effort to raise the alarm, Trump was elected, served for years, and after the Biden interlude, was returned to office again in November of 2024. While what I wrote ten years ago might be viewed as a testament of foresight—namely my concerns on how he would govern and how (what I saw as a darker vision) would alter the political and more importantly cultural landscape—the verdict is that I had little, in any, impact.

But still I write, buoyed by the support of readers and the actions of like-minded citizens, yet respectful of those friends and acquaintances who harbor a different view, who do not see the President in the same light as I do. In the end, the hope is, on my part, that this will pass and a shared vision illuminated by a brighter light will emerge.

* * *

REFLECTIONS ON THIS SATURDAY AFTERNOON

Had a pretty decent Saturday. After delivering the Fowlerville News & Views to the carriers, who, in turn, distribute it to the hinterlands of rural Fowlerville. And after delivering these eagerly anticipated copies to stores and public places in Webberville, Williamston, Howell, and the Village of Fowlerville, with a good deal of help from wife and son, I arrived back home.

I pulled out a rocker from the garage and sat in the sunny part of the lawn, drank a beer, and enjoyed this spring-like afternoon.

We have a bird feeder, and I watched the various birds coming to partake of this bounty. However, they're a flighty bunch. The least little hint of trouble, and our feathered brethren take off for a nearby branch, then wait to see if the coast is clear. Interestingly, the birds include the usual English Sparrows but also Mourning Doves and other unlikely birds of a feather. I was impressed by their instantaneous reflex to flee at any hint of danger, but also the equilibrium that exists between the species that allowed them to share this common ground. Live and let live as the overriding philosophy.

I kept an eye out to see if any raptors were about. Fortunately, none were in sight. Although I do not begrudge their role in the ecology, on this balmy day, full of life and all its wonderful possibilities, I did not wish to witness this hard fact firsthand.

But then the harmony was suddenly disrupted by the arrival of a squirrel, intent to feast on the available bounty. Needless to say, the birds for whom the seeds were intended, fled. I attempted to convince the squirrel that his opportunistic behavior and suspect manners, his bullying attitude, were not appreciated. Alas, my efforts had little effect. The squirrel did not care about the birds or the fact that the seed was intended for them. Nor did he seem to care about my opinion or the equilibrium that had been disputed. It seemed that all he cared about was his appetite. Having seen him in action, I have decided to call him Trump.

There are certain rules of engagement and codes of conduct we have followed; respectful behavior and manners that keep the equilibrium intact. While we might not be the same bird of a feather, we attempt to share the feeder. However, every now and then an opportunistic squirrel shows up to threaten the long-standing balance.

I yelled at the squirrel and successfully scared him off. Even so, I know he’ll be back when I’m not around. As for the real Trump, he seems to be more persistent.

* * *

Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist & commentator.

* * *

Letter from the Editor: It’s cloudy this Sunshine Week. Two people can part the skies

by John Hiner, MPA President,
President, MLive Media Group

Every Sunshine Week, the Michigan Press Association honors a public official who advances open government. This year, for the first time, we’re giving no award.

That’s how cloudy it is over transparency in Michigan.

“Unfortunately, this year’s legislative and policy landscape does not reflect the progress or commitment to openness that the award is designed to celebrate,” the MPA said in advance of Sunshine Week, which begins March 15.

“Rather than closing that gap, the past year has seen little forward movement – and in some cases, proposals that would further restrict access.”

Sunshine Week is an annual observance by news organizations across America, advocating for better access to government dealings and documents, more transparency by public officials and stronger laws for accountability.

After decades of advocacy and broken promises, Michigan remains the only state in the nation that exempts the governor’s office from the Freedom of Information Act. It’s also one of just two states where FOIA does not apply to the Legislature.

Let that sink in: Dead last. Michigan isn’t just lagging – it’s the only state still operating with this level of secrecy.

As president of the MPA this year, I support the board’s decision. No public official stood out as a champion of reform. But one public official earned responsibility for stopping real reform: Speaker of the House Matt Hall (R-Richland Township).

In 2024, when Democrats controlled the House, then-Republican Leader Hall urged them to strengthen transparency laws:

“It’s crucial to support proposals that enhance transparency in our government, including stricter requirements for the governor and state departments to disclose documents and communications,” he wrote at the time. “Over the past five years, numerous reports have highlighted the administration’s widespread overuse of privileges, long delays, excessive redactions, and denials in response to records requests.”

Those were strong words – and they turned out to be only words.

After Republicans won control and Hall became Speaker, the Senate passed Bills 1 and 2 to expand FOIA to the governor’s office and Legislature. The reforms were finally within reach.

Hall declared them “dead” and “a very low priority.” In November, he told reporters plainly: “We’re just not going to do FOIA.”

The public overwhelmingly supports reform: An EPIC-MRA poll commissioned by the MPA found 89 percent of Michigan voters support expanding FOIA to the governor and Legislature – across party lines, across regions.

If this was on the ballot, it would pass in a landslide.

The failure is bipartisan and longstanding. Governor Gretchen Whitmer campaigned in 2018 on an eight-page Michigan Sunshine Plan that promised to expand FOIA to her own office. When Democrats controlled both chambers in 2022, the opportunity was there.

It didn’t happen.

Transparency should not depend on who holds the gavel. It should not depend on who occupies the governor’s office. It should not be weaponized when convenient and abandoned when power changes hands.

Right now, one person can allow a vote on Senate Bills 1 and 2: Speaker Hall. And one person can sign them into law: Governor Whitmer.

Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield), co-author of the bills, put it plainly: “If this were put up for a vote in the House, it would pass. There’s no doubt. It has the votes.”

So, what are we waiting for?

Michigan citizens deserve to know how decisions are made, how money is spent, and how power is exercised. They deserve a government that does not hide behind exemptions no other state tolerates.

Sunshine Week is about accountability. This year let’s put the accountability squarely where it belongs.

Speaker Hall: Allow a vote.

Governor Whitmer: Sign the reforms.

Lawmakers in both parties: Stop hiding behind leadership and stand with your constituents.

No more empty rhetoric. No more campaign promises. No more delay.

Let the sun in.

* * *

Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist & commentator and his weekly newspaper, the ‘Fowlerville News & Views’ is a member of the Michigan Press Association.