Independent News

This post was originally published on this site

Only months after an order by President Joe Biden made it mandatory, the United States military has moved swiftly to get to near-universal vaccination. The Washington Post reports that roughly 97% of active-duty service members have now had at least one dose, and 87% have had both.

As widely expected by commenters with even a passing knowledge of military matters, each military branch has achieved those numbers by not taking any guff from soldiers who believe they should be able to opt-out; the Post also reports that while some medical exemptions have been granted, no religious exemptions have been. That appears to be because officials are being hard-asses about the matter, and those who would claim such an exemption “would be required to have an established history of adherence to a religion that prohibits vaccines, among other things.”

Neither Facebook paranoia nor reflexive hatred of authority counts as an established “religion,” at least not yet, and of the world’s many recognized religions only a handful are anti-vaccine on principle. The military requires numerous vaccines for entry and deployment both, and if you weren’t having a very visible cow over those, your newfound religious beliefs are probably not going to fly.

The military’s approach to vaccinating troops has been a simple one: Shut Up And Do It, a reflection of the special dangers posed by a pandemic in operations that necessarily often involve cramming a great many people into very small spaces. It’s also another demonstration that, when push comes to shove, the vaccine hesitancy being pushed incessantly in news stories focusing on small bands of sign-waving conspiracy theorists is largely vaporous.

We’ve seen that time and time again. Law enforcement outrage over being asked to vaccinate was paired with dire warnings that if America required its police to be vaccinated against a deadly disease still raging out of control throughout the nation, those officers would abandon their jobs in droves. There have been marches, and organized fury, and when the deadlines for getting vaccinated actually came and went, the number of people willing to lose their jobs over a belief they only recently decided they had turned out to be very close to zero.

Making vaccination mandatory for those who work for large and midsize companies, for those whose jobs require frequent public interactions, and for military members turns out to be a (perhaps shockingly) effective pandemic tool. And if we’re going to get to any version of “herd immunity” before the virus mutates into new, possibly worse versions, we have to get there immediately. Every other possible outcome is unthinkable.

The success of each mandate as it is put in place, whether it be in individual hospital chains or the U.S. military, bodes well for the new Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules requiring employees at companies with 100+ workers to achieve full vaccination by January 4. Those with genuine medical issues requiring exemption or employees whose Facebook paranoia has rendered them hopelessly anti-vaccination will be required to wear masks and be tested for infection weekly, and that will get old very fast for anyone who chooses that path out of apathy or undirected spite.

Republican-held states continue to file lawsuits in an attempt to block those mandates, however, because “undirected spite” is now a political movement all its own. Those suits are not likely to be successful because, again, OSHA has been given broad authority to regulate workplace safety, and COVID-19 is, at present, the leading cause of workplace death by a large margin. But we cannot discount the possibility that the newly archconservative Supreme Court will decide that “spite” is now sufficient reason to possibly kill coworkers if you decide that’s what you want to do.

We’re likely to see a continuation of the pandemic trend of rising death tolls in Republican-held states even as other states get the pandemic under better control. Though, as Florida’s several surges demonstrate, these cases spread quickly over the borders of the states producing them.

The opposition to being vaccinated is still a political belief, not a medical one. Republican leaders like Florida’s DeSantis attack vaccine requirements and urge their followers to do the same as part of the broader far-right war against anything that makes a conservative feel bad, whether it be a Toni Morrison book or a sterile needle, all alleged plots by national elites to bruise their arms or egos in some ill-defined fashion.

The good news is that it’s still a pretty thinly held political belief. While those that truly immerse themselves in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories may be (loudly) willing to lose their jobs and careers rather than abide getting vaccinated, those who oppose vaccination on grounds invented by Fox News seem to be quick to buckle when their jobs are truly on the line.

The military, for its part, doesn’t have much patience for those who believe authority figures should be opposed out of spite. The rest of America is getting tired enough of pandemic suffering to be losing patience as well, so now it’s mandate time.

This post was originally published on this site

Earlier this week, Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley closed her speech at the annual climate summit COP26—the 26th “conference of the parties” to the U.N.’s climate body—with some harsh words for the world leaders in attendance: “Try harder.” Mottley called out the pipe-dream promises of countries investing in technology that has yet to be developed and got to the heart of the issue for countries like Barbados and many smaller nations on the front lines of the climate crisis.

“On adaptation, adaptation finance remains only at 25%; not the 50-50 split that was promised, nor needed, given the warming that is already taking place on this Earth. Climate finance to frontline small island developing states declined by 25% in 2019,” Mottley said. “Failure to provide the critical finance and that of loss and damage is measured in my friends, in lives and livelihoods in our communities. This is immoral and it is unjust.”

Meaningfully fighting climate change means investing significantly in ways to slow the overall warming of the planet. It’s something known the world over. And people are frankly tired of seeing those in power do everything but make the necessary investment for our future. It’s what prompted activists with the Sunrise Movement to hound Senator Joe Manchin early Thursday morning as he made his way from his houseboat to his Maserati.

Caribbean Matters offers a wealth of information on Mottley and zeroes in on the prime minister quoting the Eddy Grant classic “Living on the Frontline” during her speech. Mottley’s timing couldn’t be better, as Grant is in the middle of a legal battle against Donald Trump, who used “Electric Avenue” in a 2020 campaign video. The prime minister is at once savvy and inspiring so it’s no surprise that folks are still discussing her standout speech from Monday. It’s also worth noting she’s one of few women of color speaking truth to power at COP26.

Sunrise Movement demonstrators lacked the same panache as Mottley, but their actions nonetheless highlight the collective frustration many the world over are feeling over climate change inaction. It’s hard to sit back and hope for the best as the months drag on and lawmakers refuse to prioritize the one planet we’ve got. I’d argue that going after just Joe Manchin isn’t enough, though.

Climate change is here and it’s coming for your food, your water, your shelter—all the things humans need to survive. The U.S. is the largest carbon polluter in history, and we should treat our fight against climate change as a global one. Mottley said it best at the beginning of her speech: “The pandemic has taught us that national solutions to global problems do not work.”

We cannot fault one lawmaker for the collective failure of the people representing us. That’s why it’s more important than ever to voice your support for the Build Back Better Act and urge those in Congress to do the right thing: Pass this necessary legislation and continue the fight against climate change.

This post was originally published on this site

Senate Republicans, tantalized by the campaign of Virginia GOP governor-elect Glenn Youngkin, clearly have no idea how they’re going to replicate his candidacy in battleground races next year. Youngkin had the political acumen and backbone to sideline Donald Trump, while simultaneously doubling down on Trumpism, in order to appeal to multiple audiences.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota told Politico that Youngkin was “very deft” for a political newcomer. “It’s a good playbook. Hopefully, our candidates can sort of watch and learn.”

The problem for Republicans is the uniqueness of the Virginia election. Youngkin had no political baggage in terms of votes or a track record. He was also able to 100% capitalize on any voter dissatisfaction since Democrats enjoyed full control of both the state and federal governments. And then there’s the fact that Youngkin hasn’t spent the past five years of his life doing Trump’s dirty bidding and surrendering to his every whim.

In states Trump won in 2020, we can expect to see Republicans campaigning side-by-side with him. In Florida, for instance, Sen. Marco Rubio is already stroking Trump’s ego.

“The president’s viewed as a liability in the minds of some people around here. Not in the real world,” Rubio said in an interview on Wednesday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina also attempted to stroke Trump’s ego, but instead muddled his way into a moment of clarity about Trump’s drag on the party.

“Trump played it pretty well, not to give any more air to the Trump card,” Graham observed. “Being associated with an unpopular politician [like Trump] is an oft-used strategy.”

Trump was so smart to lay low because people don’t like him!

Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah offered perhaps the soberest take on what was possible for Republicans next year.

“President Trump’s gonna do what he wants to do,” Romney noted. “He will clearly have a very substantial influence on primary campaigns.”

True. And Trump’s dominance of Senate GOP primaries will ensure that very few, if any, Youngkin-type candidates survive. As I have noted before, Herschel Walker—who allegedly made a habit of threatening to “blow” the brains out of his female partners—is on a glide path to the GOP nomination in Georgia. Pennsylvania GOP Senate candidate Sean Parnell, whose estranged wife just gave searing testimony this week about his alleged patterns of abuse, has Trump’s endorsement in the primary. In North Carolina, former Republican Gov. Pat McCrory would clearly be the more moderate establishment pick to run for the state’s open Senate seat, but Trump has already put his thumb on the scale for Rep. Ted Budd, one of the first congressional Republicans to announce he wouldn’t vote to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 win.

North Carolina’s other GOP Senator, Thom Tillis, who narrowly won reelection last year, offered the advice that Republican candidates “really need to study what happened in Virginia and model a lot of these campaigns about that.” Tillis added that “Democrats are going to do like they tried to do to Youngkin.”

The truth is, Democrats won’t have to try to do anything with the radicalized slate of GOP candidates emerging now. If Walker and Parnell win the party’s nomination, for instance, no one is going to need to mention Trump to point out that they are extreme and dangerous. Not to mention that Trump will be hitting the campaign trail for his candidates and no one will stop him—least of all Senate GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  

This post was originally published on this site

The decision by the University of Florida (UF) to muzzle three professors from testifying against a new state law restricting people from their constitutional right to vote has exploded into a political and public relations battle. 

In a case challenging Senate Bill 90, UF political science professors Daniel Smith, Michael McDonald, and Sharon Austin were notified via email that their request to serve as experts was denied. Now, according to reporting by The New York Times, five more professors have come forward about being banned from testifying.

The body that sets the accreditation for the university opened an inquiry Monday to determine whether banning the faculty was in legal conflict with the “academic freedom” and “undue political influence” standards of the school, Miami Herald reported. 

Monday the university’s president ordered a review of the decision to ban the professors from testifying.

“The University of Florida stands firmly behind its commitment to uphold our most sacred right as Americans, the right to free speech, and to faculty members’ right to academic freedom,” UF said in a statement. “Nothing is more fundamental to our existence as an institution.”

Since the start of all of this controversy, all roads have conspicuously led to Gov. Ron DeSantis, who of course denies any involvement. 

This is an internal U.F. issue and not the sort of thing that the executive branch would be involved in,” Christina Pushaw, DeSantis’ spokeswoman told the Times. “Governor DeSantis has always championed free speech, open inquiry and viewpoint diversity on college and university campuses.”

But isn’t it a little smarmy and suspicious that the red carpet appeared to roll out for one professor in Florida—the one who chose to testify in defense of the state’s oppressive and racist voting law? 

Florida International University professor Dairo Moreno spoke as an “expert witness” in League of Women Voters of Florida v. Lee, which challenges the restrictive voting law, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

Florida International’s conflict of interest policy is nearly identical to the University of Florida’s, barring professors from taking jobs that could “interfere with their primary academic duties, affect the university’s integrity, or create a conflict between the private interests of the employee and the public interests of the University, the Board of Governors, and/or the State of Florida,” the Chronicle reports. 

Moreno was “hired by the Florida Legislator as an expert witness in defense of every GOP-drawn redistricting map since 1994,” according to the Tampa Bay Times. 

So despite the numerous lies and negations, DeSantis and his administration have made, the reality is when professors speak out against Florida’s GOP policies they professors are banned, and when they speak in support of the policies, they have the opportunity to testify. 

“It’s creating an environment which is putting intolerable pressure on universities and other institutions as well to comply with the political policies of this administration, for sure,” Dr. Jeffrey L. Goldhagen, a longtime professor and administrator at the university’s College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the Times. “I don’t think there’s any questions about that.”

Goldhagen, a pediatrics expert, was muzzled during the summer when attempting to give sworn testimony disputing DeSantis’ ban on mask mandates in schools. 

“I had no option, personally or professionally,” he said. “I’ve always made decisions based on what’s best for children.”

Goldhagen’s confession has opened the floodgates. In a letter of support of the three professors, over 80 professors accused the university of “a serious violation of academic freedom and faculty speech rights,” adding: “We call on University of Florida administrators to reverse their decision, and to allow Professors Sharon Austin, Michael McDonald, and Daniel Smith to offer expert testimony in this case.”

This is just more of DeSantis’ attempt to push his state further into fascism, just as his June legislation attempted to do against the “indoctrination” of students. The law, which went into effect July 1, requires universities and colleges to “survey” students, faculty, and staff about their beliefs with regard to “intellectual diversity.”

The survey will ascertain “the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented” in public schools and to learn if teachers and students “feel free to express beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom,” according to the bill.

DeSantis suggested the information gathered could be used to cut funding if the schools were found to be ”indoctrinating” students. 

In a letter to UF, attorneys Paul Donnelly and Conor Flynn wrote, “The university cannot silence the professors on matters of great public importance. These professors are citizens entitled to participate in the marketplace of ideas.”

Friday, McDonald tweeted a video of Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.” He and his colleagues “are the faculty being denied our constitutional right to free speech by the university,” he wrote.

This post was originally published on this site

President Biden on Wednesday shot down reports that his administration has been in talks for possible settlements of up to $450,000 for family separation victims who have sued the federal government over the inhumane and traumatic policy. “’$450,000 per person? Is that what you’re saying?’ Mr. Biden said when asked by Fox News reporter Peter Doocy about the payments,” The New York Times reported. “That’s not going to happen.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which launched lawsuits to block the policy and seek compensation for traumatized victims, swiftly responded, saying the president “may not have been fully briefed” about Justice Department actions. “But if he follows through on what he said, the president is abandoning a core campaign promise to do justice for the thousands of separated families.”

“We respectfully remind President Biden that he called these actions ‘criminal’ in a debate with then-President Trump, and campaigned on remedying and rectifying the lawlessness of the Trump administration,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero continued in the statement Wednesday. “We call on President Biden to right the wrongs of this national tragedy.”

CNN and The Wall Street Journal had reported officials were in talks for possible settlements for asylum-seekers subjected to the policy, which Physicians for Human Rights in a report last year said constituted torture. “Financial compensation would likely vary, and not all would get the maximum agreed-upon amount,” CNN reported. While that report said it was unclear how many would be eligible for a payment, The Wall Street Journal noted roughly 940 families had filed claims.

As noted earlier this week, those reports were predictably met with outrage from right-wing politicians, who were more pissed off over the reported damages than they ever were about the traumatic damage caused by the policy.

The president “wants you to give $1 million to illegal immigrant families who broke the law,” shrieked presidential wannabe Tom Cotton, in just one example. It should come as no surprise that this offensive “illegal immigrant” language was echoed in the question posed by Doocy, who also asked if reported settlements “might incentivize more people to come over illegally.” So, now he’s creating more outrage over a completely made-up idea than about the separation policy itself. Reminder: Seeking asylum is legal immigration. And why keep calling on this man?

“The case for compensating these migrant families is clear,” Boston Globe columnist Marcela García wrote in a recent piece. “It wasn’t just the act of forced separation, but also what some parents were reportedly told (or not) after the fact: ‘You’ll never see your child again.’” When families were finally reunited under court order, some children didn’t appear to recognize their parents, like in the case of 3-year-old Sammy. He was separated from his family for three months. “My son is traumatized,” his mother cried.

But since the financial settlement talks appear to be tied to continued litigation, it may not even be up to the president in the end—it could be up to the courts. “Ultimately, the horrific trauma inflicted on parents and children who were separated is lasting and has long-term consequences; no amount of money can erase it,” García continued in her column. “But it’s crucial to create an economic-justice precedent so that future presidents never again consider enacting this harmful and cruel policy.” 

This post was originally published on this site

The House is still full-steam ahead on attempting to pass President Joe Biden’s hard and soft infrastructure programs this week, possibly, now that they’ve overcome the logjam that was Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. The strategy for dealing with Sen. Joe Manchin, the other problem, seems to be passing them and daring him to ruin everything, a risky bet. 

The House Rules committee now has updated text (still subject to change) of the reconciliation bill for Build Back Better (BBB), the social and climate bill that could move out of House Rules and to the floor sometime in the next 72 hours. Speaker Nancy Pelosi made clear Thursday morning that it will go to the floor along with the hard infrastructure bill (nicknamed BIF) negotiated and passed by a bipartisan Senate team. When that happens is still not clear. Pelosi told her caucus in a meeting before the press conference that the bills could be voted on Thursday night and Friday morning, but was less definitive when talking to reporters. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is officially suggesting votes on both could come as early as Thursday.

There are, however, still obstacles among House Democrats. One big issue still to work out is immigration; Pelosi made some news there, suggesting that the Senate needs to overrule the parliamentarian to get the best solution possible for undocumented immigrants. She and her colleagues are advocating for a registry system. “We would like to have registry in there, because we think it is the easiest, most efficient fair way to deal with people who are here so that they can work, and their families feel safe, and that they won’t be exploited,” she told reporters Thursday. “If the Senate [wants it], though, and I urge them—put it forth,” she said, “It would involve overruling the […] parliamentarian, perhaps, not getting bogged down in their rules. It’s up to to them, but if they want to do that, we want to do that.”

At this point, lawmakers have reduced the promised path to citizenship for the immigrant workforce to “parole” protections for undocumented immigrants who have been in the country since before 2011. It would allow them two five-year waivers to live and work in the United States. Pelosi’s preference, and the preference of the three Democratic House members who have been holding out their votes—Reps. Jesús García (Illinois), Lou Correa (California), and Adriano Espaillat (New York)—is to have the broader registry provision that would provide more certainty, creating a registry for immigrants who have been in the country since 2010 and allowing them to become permanent residents. It has already been presented to the parliamentarian, and rejected. As Pelosi reminded the Senate, there’s something they can do about that.

Campaign Action

The Senate remains uncertain on that, but the discussion is happening. A group of Senate Democrats has been pushing the House to put the maximum on immigration in their bill. “I do think it is important that the House include really all the pathway to citizenship […] It is important that we have that in there,” said Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada. Leaders Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin have so far demurred, with Durbin indicating that he’s not sure they wouldn’t lose Manchin that way. Schumer just said he hopes the parliamentarian “will see things in the way that we want them to.”

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey is also asking the House to go big. Just because the parliamentarian had rejected ideas, “that doesn’t mean the House can’t exert its will and express itself in terms of what it wants to see,” he said. “That’s probably why they are having options, too,” Menendez said. “And then, you know, you can always appeal the ruling of the chair.” It’s at least talked about as an option among Senate Democrats, which is a sign of some progress.

Back on the House side, the conservative crew, still trying to push for delays on BBB and an immediate vote on BIF (which is not happening), is also demanding they wait until the Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill before they’ll vote. The Joint Committee on Taxation released its analysis Thursday morning, finding the the bill would raise $1.476 trillion in revenue.

Another bit of positive economic justification for the legislation came from Moody’s Analytics Thursday morning. BBB would “strengthen long-term economic growth, the benefits of which would mostly accrue to lower- and middle/income Americans,” Moody’s analysts say. And answering one of Manchin’s regular excuses for not wanting to do it: “Concerns that the plan will ignite undesirably high inflation and an overheating economy are overdone.”

“The reconciliation package … meaningfully lifts economic growth and jobs and lowers unemployment,” the analysts conclude. “The economy performs best in the final scenario, in which both the bipartisan infrastructure deal and the reconciliation package become law.”

This post was originally published on this site

After more than two weeks of proceedings, a jury was seated on Wednesday in the trial of three white men accused of hunting down and murdering Ahmaud Arbery after they saw him jogging on property under construction in South Georgia. Only one juror out of 12 is Black, The New York Times reported of the case centering former Georgia cop and prosecutorial investigator Gregory McMichael, his son Travis, and local resident William “Roddie” Bryan.

“This court has found that there appears to be intentional discrimination on the panel,” Glynn County Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley said, “but that doesn’t mean the court has the authority to reseat simply because we have this prima facie case.” And even though Walmsley admitted that “quite a few African American jurors were excused through peremptory strikes executed by the defense,” he ultimately decided to allow the imbalance, parting ways with a special prosecutor who challenged the removal of eight Black people from the potential jury pool.

Linda Dunikoski, of the Cobb County District Attorney’s Office, cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that makes it illegal to remove potential jurors exclusively based on race, the Times reported. “African American jurors made up one-quarter of the jury panel, but the actual jury that was selected has only one African American male on it,” Dunikoski said during court.

In a case already mired in injustice, Walmsley said the defense had applied a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, reasonably specific, and related reason” to strike each Black juror. The judge said the court doesn’t have the authority to “reseat, simply, again, because there’s this prima facie case.”

Defense attorneys have said that they struck 13 white potential jurors from the case for the same reasons they other potential Black jurors: a strong bias about the case. “We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, given the fact that the majority of the African American jurors that came in here were struck for cause immediately because of their strong opinions,” Laura Hogue, Gregory McMichael’s attorney, said.

Jason Sheffield, Travis McMichael’s attorney, added: “Never before have we had a case where so many people have entered into the courtroom for jury selection already having an opinion about the guilt of the men charged.”

Not without reason.

It took a full 74 days after Arbery’s death on Feb. 23, 2020, for an arrest to be made. Former Glynn County District Attorney Jackie Johnson has been charged with obstruction and violating her oath of office in her handling of Arbery’s case following his death. The McMichaels weren’t arrested until May 7, 2020, and Bryan, who recorded the moments leading up to Arbery’s death, was arrested on May 21, 2020.

Gregory and Travis McMichael accused Arbery of trying to burglarize a house—where he stopped and peeked through the window—during a jog in coastal Georgia’s Satilla Shores community. On a 911 call, Travis can be heard describing Arbery as “a Black male, red shirt, white shorts.” Travis told a dispatcher he was sitting across the street in his red Ford F-150 “watching the house” and he didn’t know if Arbery was armed “but he was acting like he was.” The home, owned by Larry English, was under construction and occasionally attracted curious pedestrians, according to surveillance video released to the media. Only Arbery was shot and killed for doing so, and he was unarmed at the time of his death, Arbery’s family attorney Lee Merritt has maintained.

Merritt told The New York Times jury selection in the case has been “the strangest jury selection process” he’s ever seen. “We understand there are some unique circumstances,” the attorney said. “There’s very few people who wouldn’t have heard about this case. Most have developed an opinion about the case. So I understand that the attorneys, in general, will have some questions that we’re not used to.” Merritt, however, added that some of the defense’s questioning was “badgering.”

CK Hoffler, chief executive officer of the Atlanta-based CK Hoffler Firm, told journalist Mehdi Hasan those observing the trial have commented about biased questioning during jury selection. Their observations reported that Black potential jurors were asked “more probing” questions than other prospective jurors, and that some may have been stricken for cause in error. “So those could be appealable issues, but the bottom line is there’s one African American on the jury,” Hoffler, who isn’t involved in the case, said. “And out of the thousand people that were initially called to potentially serve for this jury, (…) it is quite a travesty, I think, that only one African American was selected, given the demographics of that community.”

Brunswick, the city in which Satilla Shores is located, has a population that is about 55% Black and 40% white. 

Scott Hechinger, a Brooklyn public defender, tweeted that Black jurors in the case could be released if they answered truthfully that they believed the Confederate flag was a racist symbol. “Unbelievable the question was even allowed to be asked,” the attorney, who isn’t involved in the case, said in the tweet. “Unbelievable that this was considered a ‘race-neutral’ reason to strike.”

Through their attorneys, the McMichaels have sought to ban from the trial a photo of a vanity plate with a Confederate emblem that was on Travis McMichael’s truck when Arbery was killed. The McMichaels claimed in their motion filed Sept. 30 that the state’s goal is to “draw the conclusion the Mr. Arbery saw the vanity plate, that he interpreted its meaning, and that he feared the occupants in the truck because of this vanity plate, which is why he ran away from the truck.” The McMichaels also claimed through their attorneys that the state intends to “create the inference that Travis McMichael placed the vanity plate on his truck in order to telegraph some reprehensible motive, bias, or prejudice, which is not true.”

Prosecutors responded in a motion that “the State will present the facts of this case, and one of those facts is that Travis McMichael purchased a new truck sometime after January 1, 2020, and put this vanity plate on it.”

They additionally wrote:

“The vanity plate was on the truck at the time of the homicide. The jury may interpret that evidence in any way they deem appropriate and the State may make reasonable inferences, in closing argument, drawn from the evidence.”

Arbery’s mother Wanda Cooper-Jones said in an interview with ABC News the jury’s makeup is “very, very discouraging. (…) I have my concerns about getting a guilty verdict,” she said.

Opening statements in the case are set to begin Friday. 

RELATED: Travis McMichael is actively trying to keep his Confederate vanity plate out of his murder trial

RELATED: It took Ahmaud Arbery’s mother’s push for justice to bring charges against her son’s alleged killers

RELATED: ‘Cheap and blatant’: Accused murderers of Ahmaud Arbery try to make sure jury knows about probation

RELATED: Murder trial in Ahmaud Arbery case is not about Arbery’s past, judge rules in vital decision

This post was originally published on this site

The cycle repeats itself. Last year, hundreds of Muslim Americans made history as the firsts in their respected towns and states. This year more join with historic wins as elected officials. Michigan specifically makes history with not one but three firsts for the Muslim community. Three Michigan towns—Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, and Hamtramck—elected their first Muslim mayors Tuesday.

While both Dearborn and Dearborn Heights have a high Muslim population, neither town has seen a Muslim mayor before. Tuesday’s results now reflect the towns’ demographics and show the reality of a change in demographics in Hamtramck as well.

In Dearborn, state legislator Abdullah Hammoud has become the city’s first Arab mayor.

“While the night marks the first of many, we never ran to be the first, we ran to be the best,” Hammoud said during his victory speech acknowledging his historic win but noting his candidacy was not just about diversity.

Hammoud defeated Gary Woronchak, a former state representative and former Wayne County commissioner, with 54.6% of the vote, the Detroit Free Press reported. The 31-year-old succeeds John “Jack” O’Reilly Jr., mayor since 2007, whose administration faced criticism over its handling of flooding last summer. 

When Hammoud takes office early next year, the House lawmaker will become the first Muslim and the first person of color to lead the city’s 110,000 residents as their seventh mayor.

Hammoud’s win is historic not only because of his identity, and the fact that it reflects the demographic of the community he will be representing, but also in light of the town’s history of racism. 

According to Al-Jazeera, Dearborn’s longest-serving mayor, Orville Hubbard, was known nationally for his racism against minority groups. While the town is now heavily Arab populated and houses one of the largest Arab American communities in the nation, the census does not reflect this because Arab Americans are classified as white. 

“We finally have Arab Americans speaking for themselves, being elected to office, representing their communities, gaining recognition for this population, gaining a voice for them,” Sally Howell said, director of the Center for Arab American Studies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.

“To the young girls and boys who have ever been ridiculed for their faith or ethnicity. To those of you who were ever made to feel that their names were unwelcome and to our parents and to our elders and to others who are humiliated for their broken English and yet still persistent, today is proof that you are as American as anyone else, and there is a new era in Dearborn,”  Hammoud said during his victory speech.

In Dearborn Heights, Mayor Bill Bazzi was elected to continue to serve as mayor.

Bazzi was appointed in January to serve following the death of Mayor Daniel Paletko.

While already known as the town’s first Muslim mayor, on Tuesday he became the town’s first elected Muslim mayor after beating Council Chair Denise Malinowski Maxwell. A Marine Corps veteran and immigrant from Lebanon, as the town’s mayor, he is not only the first Muslim but the first Arab American to serve.

According to the Detroit Free Press, about one-third of Dearborn Heights is Arab American, making Bazzi’s historic win an accurate representation of the community.

During his campaign, Bazzi frequently clashed with Malinowski-Maxwell—who once accused Bazzi of faking his 21 years of service with the Marines. But despite the hate he received and the conflicts with other politicians, Bazzi succeed in his reelection and made history once again.

When asked about his historic win, he acknowledged it but shared similar sentiments with other “firsts,” who noted it was not about them.

“It feels great,” he said. “But I don’t look at any of this as making history. I’m looking at it as I’m serving the people and serving Dearborn Heights. I’m here for the residents and I have an open-door policy always to residents, staff, everyone. My goal and mission is for the residents and for the city of Dearborn Heights.”

In a message to students who supposed him and even countered at the polls, Bazzi not only thanked them but noted he was proud.

“The sky’s the limit,” he said. “If you work hard and do the right thing and stay focused, you can achieve anything, you just need a dream and a passion. If I can do everything in my life that I’ve done, including this, then anyone can. I am grateful when I see youth involved in civic duties and serving the community, as it serves as an inspiration to even younger generations and comes full circle. I’m proud of them and there’s a good process of caring about each other and about our community. This really brings us all together and shows that we are and have one strong community.”

In Hamtramck, Amer Ghalib defeated Mayor Karen Majewski to become not only the city’s first Muslim mayor, but the city’s first non-Polish mayor in a century.

According to the Detroit Metro Times, Ghalib, a health care worker and immigrant from Yemen, defeated opponent Majewski by a landslide.

Hamtramck has historically, for the last 100 years, always had a mayor of Polish descent. While it used to be dominantly Polish, Polish-Americans today make up less than 7% of the city, according to census reports.

As mayor, Galib will be the first Arab American and the first Muslim to serve, in a town that has the highest percentage of immigrants among cities in metro Detroit. Approximately half of the city’s population identifies as Muslim.

Advocacy groups, including the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), acknowledged the historic wins in Michigan. “We congratulate Mr. Hammoud and Mr. Ghalib on their historic victories in Dearborn and Hamtramck and for becoming the first Muslims to hold mayoral office in those cities,” CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid said in a press release. “Their victories are signs of not only the increased political engagement of Muslims in our region but also the comfort fellow Michiganians of other faiths have in supporting Muslim candidates.”        

While he was campaigning, many criticized Ghalib for opposing flying an LGBTQ Pride Flag in the city and for his disapproved of marijuana dispensaries. But Ghalib told the Detroit Free Press that he would not impose his beliefs on others.

“People think because of my background and my religious beliefs that I will be anti-LGBT or something, but we are in America,” Ghalib said. “The same Constitution that allowed me to practice my religion here, to pray the way I want, it gives others the same freedom to practice their beliefs and express their values the way they want.”

Congratulations to Michigan’s three firsts— here’s to more to come!