The Last Carving: Sign of the Beefcarver’s Reported Closing Would End a Woodward Tradition Nearly 70 Years in the Making

 

ROYAL OAK, Michigan — For generations of Metro Detroit families, Sign of the Beefcarver offered a familiar comfort: a tray sliding along a cafeteria line, roast beef carved to order, mashed potatoes and gravy, and a slice of pie waiting at the end.

Now, the restaurant that outlasted the rest of its chain is reportedly preparing to serve its final meals.

A farewell statement attributed to the owners says the last Sign of the Beefcarver, on Woodward Avenue in Royal Oak, will close Sunday, October 25. The statement cites rising food costs, particularly roast beef, continuing financial losses and difficulties recovering from the pandemic.

If the closing proceeds as announced, it will bring an end to a restaurant tradition dating to 1957—and to a business that survived expansion, corporate ownership, a trademark battle and a devastating fire.

A Familiar Place Along Woodward

The original restaurant opened in November 1957 on the east side of Woodward, north of Eleven Mile Road, under the name Sign of the Beefeater.

Its formula was straightforward: serve substantial, familiar meals in a welcoming colonial setting, with cafeteria efficiency and a personal touch. Customers selected their food along the serving line, then staff helped carry their trays to the table.

Hand-carved beef, homemade soups, vegetables, baked goods and classic desserts became its trademarks. A fireplace and colonial furnishings gave the place a character somewhere between a cafeteria and a family dining room.

There was no need to study an unfamiliar menu or wonder what kind of experience awaited inside. The appeal rested in knowing.

For customers who first visited with parents or grandparents, returning could mean revisiting a family ritual as much as ordering dinner.

From One Restaurant to a Regional Chain

Founded by Jack Joliat and Bob LaJoie, the business grew from its Royal Oak beginnings into a recognizable regional chain. Two additional restaurants opened in 1966, and by 1972 there were eight Metro Detroit locations.

That year, Montgomery Ward acquired the company. Under the department store retailer’s ownership, eight more restaurants were added, including four in the Chicago area.

Expansion brought the concept to more customers, but the original Woodward location remained the place where its story began. The Royal Oak Historical Society identifies it as the city’s oldest restaurant.

The Name Changed, but the Roast Beef Stayed

The transition from Beefeater to Beefcarver resulted from a trademark dispute with the company behind Beefeater Gin.

The dispute culminated in a judgment requiring a new name, and the restaurant became Sign of the Beefcarver in 1979. Around the same period, Montgomery Ward exited the business, and a management group led by Joliat reacquired the chain. The Chicago restaurants were closed as the company refocused on Metro Detroit.

For longtime customers, the new name did little to alter the restaurant’s identity. The carving station, comfort food and colonial atmosphere remained the heart of the experience.

A Fire Nearly Ended the Original

On December 9, 1984, a major fire severely damaged the Royal Oak restaurant.

The owners rebuilt, and the restaurant reopened in September 1985. For the original location, it was a second beginning—one that allowed another generation of customers to discover the business.

The rebuilding also became part of its larger story of endurance. A restaurant that could have disappeared in the mid-1980s instead remained on Woodward for decades afterward.

The Chain Shrinks to Its Starting Point

Eventually, declining business and changing dining habits took their toll on the chain.

The Dearborn restaurant’s closure in June 2018 left Royal Oak as the final location. Dearborn had operated on Michigan Avenue since 1967; contemporary reporting cited declining sales and the sale of its building for redevelopment.

The chain’s history had come full circle. Its first restaurant was now its last.

For the following years, the Woodward location carried the entire Beefcarver tradition: the food, the familiar service and the memories attached to restaurants that had already disappeared.

Owners Cite Costs and Pandemic Aftereffects

In the farewell statement provided for this article, the owners describe a business that can no longer absorb its operating losses while keeping meals affordable.

They point particularly to the price of roast beef—the product central to both the menu and the restaurant’s name. They also attribute the restaurant’s struggles to pandemic shutdowns, difficulty attracting customers afterward and government policies they consider burdensome.

Those explanations represent the owners’ account. The statement does not include financial records or identify the specific government policies involved.

Its central message, however, is clear: the owners say the balance between operating costs and the value they want to offer customers has become unsustainable.

“We sincerely THANK YOU FOR SEVENTY YEARS of loyal and faithful support for The Beefcarver!” the statement reads.

The owners also express the hope that the restaurant has given families years of happy meals and memories.

Although the statement describes 70 years of operation, the November 1957 opening places the restaurant just short of its 69th anniversary this October—nearly seven decades of history.

More Than a Final Meal

A restaurant’s closing can be measured in sales, expenses and the number of locations remaining. Its place in a community is harder to calculate.

At Sign of the Beefcarver, that place was built through repetition: the same trip along Woodward, the same favorite entrée, the same decision over dessert, the same familiar surroundings.

Its reported closing would mean losing one more place where Metro Detroit’s past remained part of everyday life.

For customers planning a farewell visit, the statement identifies Sunday, October 25, as the intended final day at 27400 Woodward Avenue in Royal Oak. Customers should confirm plans directly with the restaurant at 248-546-7888.

For nearly seven decades, families came through its doors for dinner. What many will remember longest is who sat across the table.

Great Lakes Hold On to Summer’s Warmth as Michigan Moves Deeper Into Fall

 

All five lakes are warmer than average, helping soften shoreline cold snaps and providing moisture for autumn rain showers.

October 17, 2026

Fall has arrived across Michigan, but the Great Lakes are still carrying some of summer’s heat.

All five lakes have surface temperatures above their long-term averages for mid-October, according to NOAA data. Lake Michigan stands out at approximately 6 degrees above normal, while Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario are each roughly 4 degrees warmer than average.

That lingering warmth can influence the weather well beyond the beaches. It can moderate temperatures in shoreline communities, help generate lake-effect rain and, eventually, provide energy for lake-effect snow when sufficiently cold air arrives.

For now, however, warm water alone does not signal an approaching snow outbreak.

How Much Warmer Are the Lakes?

Pockets of Water Remain in the 60s

Some of the most striking readings are the actual surface temperatures still being observed in parts of the lakes.

Southern Lake Michigan has areas near 65 degrees, while portions of northern Lake Michigan remain around 60 degrees. In Lake Erie, some surface water is still approximately 67 degrees.

Those are local readings, rather than averages for each entire lake. Temperatures vary considerably across these enormous bodies of water.

Location	Reported surface temperature
Portions of Lake Erie	About 67°F
Southern Lake Michigan	About 65°F
Northern Lake Michigan	About 60°F

The readings illustrate how much warmth remains stored in the water even as shorter days and cooler nights push Michigan further into autumn.

The Lakes Took Different Paths to October

The current warmth did not develop at the same time everywhere.

Lake Superior spent much of the year on the colder side of normal. Its surface temperatures remained below average through winter, spring and summer before moving above normal around August 31.

Lake Michigan crossed above average near the end of June and has generally remained there. Lake Huron also warmed above normal following June’s early-summer heat.

By mid-October, all five lakes were showing the lingering effects of the warm season.

Still, above average does not mean record-breaking. The supplied report identifies October 15, 2021, as warmer across all five lakes. This year’s readings are elevated, but they do not establish new records for that date.

What This Means for Michigan’s Fall Weather

For communities near the shoreline, warmer water can take some of the edge off an autumn cold snap.

Water releases stored heat gradually. When colder air moves across a relatively warm lake, that heat can help keep nearby locations milder than they otherwise would be. The effect depends on wind direction and the movement of the colder air.

The same temperature contrast can also encourage lake-effect rain. As chilly air passes over warmer water, it picks up heat and moisture, helping clouds and showers develop downwind.

That is one reason Michigan can experience unsettled, showery weather around the lakes even after a broader storm system has moved away.

Could the Warm Water Mean Heavier Snow Later?

It could contribute—but only when the atmosphere supplies the other necessary ingredients.

Relatively warm, open water can support substantial lake-effect snow when sufficiently cold air passes overhead. Wind direction, available moisture and how long the pattern lasts also help determine where snow develops and how much falls.

Warm lakes are a potential fuel source, not a winter forecast.

The report does not identify an imminent heavy lake-effect snow setup. For Michigan residents, the immediate effects are more closely tied to moderated shoreline temperatures and autumn rain showers.

Summer’s influence is fading on land. Across the Great Lakes, it is taking longer to let go.

 

Jocelyn Benson’s Data-Center Hypocrisy Demands Answers

 

Benson now promises strict rules for data centers. But when a company employing her husband pushed a project in Saline Township, local officials rejected it—and the development moved forward after the company sued.

Jocelyn Benson wants Michigan voters to believe she will stand up to data-center developers. She says she would impose a moratorium until the state adopts rules for public hearings, transparency, environmental protections, and electricity costs.

Then comes the question her campaign cannot bury: Why should Michigan trust her to enforce rules she is only demanding now, after a company employing her husband helped push a controversial project past a community’s rejection?

Ryan Friedrichs, Benson’s husband, was a senior executive at Related Companies and worked on the Saline Township data-center project. He appeared before local officials for the developer. In September 2025, the township board voted 4–1 against the rezoning required for the project. Related Digital sued days later. The township then reached a settlement that allowed the project to proceed.

That is the record: elected local officials said no; the developer sued; and the project moved ahead through a settlement. Residents were heard, but they did not get the result their board’s vote called for.

Benson now says Michigan needs open negotiations and transparency to prevent backroom deals. Those principles sound compelling in a campaign speech. They sound considerably less convincing when a company tied to her household was pressing ahead with a project after local officials rejected it.

The connections raise an obvious ethical cloud. Friedrichs worked for the company advancing the project. Stephen Ross, Related Companies’ founder, previously employed Benson as CEO of the Ross Initiative in Sports for Equality and has contributed to her campaigns. That does not prove a quid pro quo or establish that Benson intervened in the Saline project. It does make the public entitled to demand more than a carefully worded denial.

Benson’s financial disclosure lists $370,000 in income for Friedrichs from his employer. That is not proof of a project commission, and it should not be portrayed as $370,000 paid by the data center. But it is a substantial household income from the company whose project he worked on. Related Companies has said Friedrichs received no commission from the project; Bridge Michigan found no evidence he stood to make millions. Those facts limit what can responsibly be claimed. They do not make the underlying relationship disappear.

Benson’s campaign says Friedrichs is no longer working on Michigan data-center projects, has recused himself from state-related work that could come before a Benson administration, and that Benson herself had no role in authorizing or developing the Saline project. The project advanced under Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration. But “I wasn’t the decision-maker” is not a satisfying answer to a candidate now asking voters to trust her judgment on the same industry that employed her husband.

The real issue is not whether Benson personally signed a permit. It is whether she applies one standard to politically connected insiders and another to everyone else. Her husband helped advance the project. Her former professional benefactor founded the company behind it and donated to her campaigns. The township rejected the project, then faced a lawsuit and settled.

Now Benson says future developers must negotiate openly, respect communities, and meet strict conditions. Where was that standard when her husband’s employer was making its case in Saline?

Voters should not accept campaign promises as proof of accountability. They should demand clear answers: What did Benson know about Friedrichs’s role, and when? What steps did she take to avoid conflicts? Why should residents believe her proposed guardrails will bind powerful developers when the Saline project advanced despite the local board’s rejection?

The public record does not establish a kickback or prove Benson intervened. It does establish enough overlapping relationships and enough political double talk to make this a serious credibility problem. Benson wants to write the rules for data centers. Before Michigan hands her that power, she should explain why her own household’s connections to this project did not require stronger safeguards from the start.

The project’s critics have collected documents and links at Data Center Darlings. Readers should also examine the township records, independent reporting, and Benson’s response.

VIDEO: Pilot Makes Dramatic Emergency Landing on I-69 Near Flint After Engine Failure

What could have been a deadly aviation accident ended with a small airplane safely on the ground and everyone walking away unharmed.

FLINT TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A pilot flying toward Bishop International Airport found himself in a frightening situation Saturday when his single-engine airplane suddenly developed engine trouble, leaving him searching for somewhere to land.

With the aircraft losing power and the airport apparently out of reach, the pilot made a split-second decision that may have saved his life. He aimed for Interstate 69 near the I-75 interchange in Flint Township.

Somehow, he managed to bring the airplane down along the highway shoulder without hitting a single vehicle.

No injuries were reported.

It was the kind of emergency that could have ended very differently, especially along a busy stretch of interstate where motorists would hardly expect to encounter an airplane coming in for a landing.

Trouble in the Air

The aircraft was reportedly approaching Bishop International Airport when a mechanical problem caused its engine to lose power.

For anyone unfamiliar with aviation, losing an engine doesn't necessarily mean an airplane is going to fall straight out of the sky. Small aircraft can glide without engine power, but that doesn't make the situation any less serious.

Altitude becomes precious, time becomes limited, and the pilot must quickly figure out where the airplane can safely touch down.

An airport runway is always preferable, but when one is no longer within reach, pilots have to work with whatever terrain is available.

In this case, that meant a Michigan interstate.

Landing on a highway presents its own set of dangers. There are moving vehicles, overhead signs, bridges, guardrails, and utility lines. Even an otherwise successful touchdown can turn disastrous if an aircraft strikes an obstacle or collides with traffic.

Fortunately, none of that happened Saturday.

A Pilot's Training Put to the Test

Emergency procedures are part of every pilot's training, but practicing an engine failure with an instructor is one thing. Experiencing an actual loss of power while approaching an airport is something entirely different.

There is no opportunity to pull over, stop, and assess the problem.

The pilot must maintain enough airspeed to keep the airplane flying while identifying a landing site and deciding whether there is time to attempt an engine restart.

Every second matters.

Saturday's outcome suggests the pilot was able to maintain control of the aircraft and make the most of an extremely difficult situation.

While the full circumstances have not yet been established, bringing a powerless airplane down beside an active interstate without injuring anyone is no small accomplishment.

What Caused the Engine to Fail?

Authorities are investigating what went wrong.

Engine problems in small airplanes can occur for several reasons, ranging from fuel delivery issues and ignition failures to mechanical breakdowns.

Investigators will likely examine the aircraft's engine, maintenance records, and available flight information to determine what caused the reported loss of power.

Until that investigation is completed, it would be premature to suggest that any particular mechanical defect or maintenance issue was responsible.

A Close Call With a Happy Ending

There is something remarkable about the fact that an airplane experiencing engine trouble could come down beside one of the Flint area's major highway interchanges without anyone getting hurt.

For the pilot, what should have been an ordinary approach to Bishop International Airport became an emergency requiring immediate action.

For drivers on I-69, it was certainly not something they would expect to see during a Saturday drive.

The investigation will eventually provide a clearer picture of why the engine failed. For now, the most important part of this story is how it ended.

The airplane made it to the ground, no motorists were struck, and the pilot escaped injury.

On a day when so much could have gone wrong, just about everything that mattered went right.

Benson Says Michigan Can “Get Around” Trump’s Canada Tariffs — But a Governor Cannot Override Federal Trade Law

The Democratic nominee for Michigan governor is promising Canadian “carve-outs.” The Constitution raises a much harder question: Where exactly would a Michigan governor get the authority to bypass a federal tariff?

Michigan Secretary of State and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson has made an extraordinary promise to Michigan voters: if elected governor, she says she can negotiate directly with Canada to protect Michigan from President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

There is just one enormous problem with that promise.

The governor of Michigan does not control United States tariff policy.

Benson has repeatedly promoted what she calls “subnational agreements” between Michigan and Canada. Her campaign has described them as “carve-outs” that could protect Michigan businesses, consumers and the auto industry from federal tariffs.

On September 30, Benson said she would negotiate agreements “simply between Michigan and our neighbor to the north” to find ways to protect Michigan border crossings from federal tariff policies. Her campaign has made similar statements repeatedly. (jocelynbenson)

But Benson has gone considerably further than simply promising better relations with Canada.

During a September 6 appearance on CBS's Face the Nation, Benson said that as governor she could meet Canadian officials and find ways to ensure Michigan-Canada trade “gets around these tariffs.” 

That wording matters.

Because governors can negotiate, cooperate and advocate.

They cannot rewrite federal tariff law.

CBS Immediately Asked the Obvious Question

CBS moderator Margaret Brennan challenged Benson directly.

If the tariffs are being imposed by the federal government, Brennan essentially asked, how could Michigan possibly cancel out those costs at the state level?

Benson did not identify a federal statute giving Michigan an exemption. She did not identify presidential authority allowing Michigan to establish its own tariff schedule. And she did not explain how an agreement between Michigan and Canadian officials could legally eliminate a tariff imposed under federal authority.

Instead, she returned to the idea of subnational agreements and said Michigan could find ways for trade with Canada to “get around” the tariffs. 

That isn't a minor detail in her proposal.

It is the central legal question.

If Benson is merely proposing cooperation with Canada to reduce other costs associated with trade, she should say precisely that.

If she is claiming that Michigan can negotiate a Canadian “carve-out” that exempts goods from a valid federal tariff, she needs to explain where that authority exists.

Tariffs Are Federal Policy, Not Michigan Policy

The Constitution did not create 50 separate American trade policies.

Article I gives Congress authority over commerce with foreign nations. The Constitution also sharply restricts states' authority over imports and exports.

And Article I, Section 10 specifically restricts states from entering agreements or compacts with foreign powers without congressional consent in circumstances covered by the Compact Clause. The Constitution Annotated published by Congress notes these explicit restrictions on state power. 

Then there is the Supremacy Clause.

Valid federal law is the supreme law of the land. A state cannot simply enact a conflicting policy because its governor believes Washington made a bad decision.

That principle applies whether the governor is a Republican fighting a Democratic president or a Democrat fighting a Republican president.

Michigan does not get a constitutional veto over Washington simply because federal policy disproportionately affects Michigan.

Imagine the Reverse Situation

The constitutional problem becomes obvious if the political parties are reversed.

Suppose a Democratic president imposed federal environmental restrictions on imports from another country.

Then imagine a Republican Michigan governor announcing:

I disagree with Washington, so I'm negotiating directly with that foreign country to create a Michigan carve-out that gets around the federal restrictions.

Would Democrats accept that?

Would Benson?

Almost certainly, the immediate question would be whether a governor was attempting to nullify federal law.

That is precisely why constitutional limits cannot depend upon which party controls Washington.

Michigan Can Work With Canada. That's Not the Same Thing.

None of this means Michigan's governor must sit silently while federal trade policy damages the state.

Michigan and Canada share enormous economic interests. A governor absolutely can maintain relationships with Canadian officials, promote Michigan exports, encourage Canadian investment, coordinate infrastructure projects, work on supply-chain problems and lobby Washington for exemptions or changes in federal policy.

A governor could also pursue lawful state policies designed to offset some economic consequences of tariffs.

Those are legitimate exercises of state leadership.

But Benson's rhetoric repeatedly goes further.

Her own campaign said on September 14 that she would negotiate agreements so Michigan-Canada trade could “get around these tariffs.” (jocelynbenson)

More recently, her campaign quoted her describing “carve-outs” between Michigan and Canada designed to protect Michigan from the tariffs. (jocelynbenson)

Those claims deserve scrutiny.

Where Is the Legal Authority?

Benson is running to become governor of Michigan, not president of the United States and not the United States Trade Representative.

So there are straightforward questions she should answer:

1. What specific legal authority allows a Michigan governor to negotiate a tariff “carve-out” with Canada?

2. Would the agreement require approval from Congress or the federal executive branch?

3. Would U.S. Customs and Border Protection still collect the federal tariff when Canadian goods enter Michigan?

4. If the federal tariff remains payable, what exactly does “get around these tariffs” mean?

5. If Benson isn't claiming Michigan can override the tariff itself, why repeatedly describe the proposal as a way to “get around” federal tariffs?

Those aren't partisan questions.

They are constitutional ones.

A Governor Cannot Create Her Own Foreign-Trade Policy

There is an important distinction Benson's campaign appears determined to blur.

A governor can oppose federal policy.

A governor can lobby to change federal policy.

A governor can challenge federal action in court when there is a legitimate legal basis.

A governor can cooperate with Canadian officials on matters within state authority.

But a governor cannot simply declare that Michigan has negotiated its way out of federal law.

If Washington has imposed a valid tariff under federal law, Michigan cannot erase that tariff through an agreement negotiated in Lansing or Toronto.

That's federal supremacy.

And no campaign slogan changes it.

Benson Owes Michigan More Than a Promise

Perhaps Benson has something narrower in mind.

Perhaps “get around” doesn't mean circumventing the tariff legally. Perhaps she means finding efficiencies, subsidies, procurement arrangements, supply-chain changes or other policies that reduce the economic impact of tariffs without eliminating them.

If that's the proposal, Benson should explain it.

Because telling Michigan voters that their governor can negotiate “carve-outs” with another country and “get around” federal tariffs creates an impression of gubernatorial authority that simply does not exist if she is talking about overriding the tariff itself.

Michigan voters deserve specifics before Election Day.

Benson is free to argue that Trump's tariffs are economically destructive. She is free to campaign against them. She is free to demand that Congress repeal them or that the president withdraw them.

What she cannot credibly promise is something the Constitution does not give a Michigan governor the power to deliver.

Michigan is a state, not a sovereign nation with its own tariff policy.

And whoever occupies the governor's office remains bound by the same Constitution and federal laws as everyone else.

MICHIGAN'S 11TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: Ethan Baker (R) Confronts Jeremy Moss (D) Recording - Voters Deserve Answers About America, Israel and Who Comes First

The Washington Post’s September 5 examination found no evidence that the clip it reviewed was AI-generated or edited, while the recording’s origin remained unresolved. (The Washington Post)

For months, a controversial recording attributed to Michigan State Senator and congressional candidate Jeremy Moss has hung over the race for Michigan's 11th Congressional District.

Now Troy Mayor and Republican congressional candidate Ethan Baker is confronting the controversy directly.

And at this point, simply dismissing the recording does not resolve the questions surrounding it.

If Moss maintains that the recording is false, voters are entitled to examine his denial alongside the recording itself, the available forensic analysis and whatever additional evidence becomes public.

The issue is bigger than a political feud between two candidates.

It concerns the priorities of someone seeking a seat in the United States Congress.

Baker Says Voters Deserve the Truth

In his October 2 statement, Baker explains that he did not immediately seize upon the recording as a political weapon.

He says he condemned hatred and personal attacks against Moss, attempted to lower the temperature surrounding the controversy and gave Moss an opportunity to respond.

But Baker also makes another point that should not be overlooked:

"And, there is another side of this that I believe we also have to respect: the people of this district and their concerns about the truth."

Exactly.

Respect for a candidate cannot require voters to stop asking questions.

Moss is seeking federal office. When potentially consequential statements are publicly attributed to someone seeking that responsibility, voters have every right to examine them closely.

What Is Heard on the Recording?

The approximately 25-second recording has been attributed online to Moss. Moss disputes that attribution and has strongly denied making the statements.

One of the statements heard on the recording says:

"The entire purpose of my campaign is to make sure America continues to support Israel."

Another says:

"America is not our homeland."

If those statements are authentic and attributable to Moss, they would raise serious questions about the priorities of a candidate asking Michigan voters to send him to Washington.

Moss says they are not his words.

That is his position.

But a denial does not end public scrutiny of a disputed recording. Voters can examine the denial together with the other available evidence.

The Forensic Findings Cannot Simply Be Ignored

The controversy becomes more significant because forensic specialists examining the publicly available audio reportedly found no evidence that the recording they examined was AI-generated or edited.

That does not answer every question surrounding the recording. Its original source remains an important unresolved issue.

But the forensic findings matter because one of the central questions surrounding the controversy has been whether the audible material itself was artificially created or technically manipulated.

The examination did not find evidence of that in the audio reviewed.

So the questions remain.

Where did the recording originate?

What was the complete conversation?

Is there a longer recording?

What evidence supports Moss's contention that the material is false?

Those are legitimate questions for a congressional candidate.

Baker Even Acknowledges a Problem With One Version

Baker does something important in his statement that strengthens the case for examining the evidence carefully rather than accepting everything circulated on social media.

He acknowledges that a caption accompanying one version of the recording attributed words that were not actually audible.

Baker says that caption should not be treated as part of the recording.

That's the appropriate standard.

Remove what cannot be supported.

Then examine what remains.

An inaccurate caption does not automatically establish that the underlying audio is fabricated. They are separate questions.

That distinction deserves considerably more attention.

"The Entire Purpose of My Campaign"

This is where Moss should face the most direct questioning.

The statement heard on the recording is not merely:

"I support Israel."

Many Republicans and Democrats strongly support Israel. That is a conventional foreign-policy position that voters can support or oppose.

The recording goes much further.

The speaker describes ensuring continued American support for Israel as the "entire purpose" of the campaign.

Those words, if authentically attributable to Moss, would demand an explanation.

Michigan's 11th District is not located in Israel.

Its representative is elected by Americans living in Michigan.

Those constituents are concerned about housing, taxes, inflation, insurance costs, health care, Social Security, Medicare, jobs, manufacturing, infrastructure, immigration, education and public safety.

A candidate seeking to represent those people should therefore be prepared to answer a straightforward question:

If the recording is authentic, why would ensuring American support for Israel be described as the "entire purpose" of a campaign for the United States Congress?

That is not an antisemitic question.

It is a question about congressional priorities.

And What About "America Is Not Our Homeland"?

The second statement deserves scrutiny as well:

"America is not our homeland."

Again, Moss denies making the statements attributed to him.

But if that statement is ultimately established as authentic and attributable to him, voters would reasonably want to know precisely what was meant.

What was the context?

What came immediately before it?

What came afterward?

Was the speaker describing someone else's position? Was the statement rhetorical? Was it part of a larger discussion whose context changes its meaning?

Those questions cannot be answered by a 25-second excerpt alone.

That is precisely why more transparency—not less—is useful.

This Is About Moss's Alleged Words, Not His Jewish Identity

There must also be a firm boundary around this controversy.

Jeremy Moss is Jewish.

That fact is not evidence of divided loyalty.

Jewish Americans should no more be required to prove their loyalty to the United States because of their religion than Muslim, Christian, Hindu or any other Americans should.

The scrutiny here should therefore remain where it belongs: on the recording, the statements contained in it, Moss's denial, the forensic evidence, his documented policy positions and any additional evidence concerning the recording's origin.

If a Catholic candidate were recorded saying the entire purpose of his campaign was protecting the interests of the Vatican, voters could ask questions.

If a Muslim candidate allegedly said it, voters could ask questions.

If a Jewish candidate allegedly said it, voters can ask questions.

The standard should be identical.

Baker Is Putting the Evidence Before the Voters

Baker's approach is ultimately straightforward.

He is directing people to the original short recording and asking them to listen.

He writes:

"Now, the decision rests with the people of the 11th District."

And that is exactly where the decision belongs.

Neither Ethan Baker nor Jeremy Moss should determine what voters are permitted to question.

Voters can listen.

They can examine the forensic findings.

They can read Moss's denial.

They can examine Baker's statement.

They can consider each candidate's documented record on Israel and American foreign policy.

And they can decide how much weight the controversy deserves.

Moss Should Answer the Questions Directly

The controversy can be reduced to several questions that deserve clear answers:

What evidence establishes where the recording originated?

Why did forensic specialists reportedly find no evidence that the audio they examined was AI-generated or edited?

Does a longer version of the recording exist?

What evidence does Moss have supporting his assertion that the recording is false?

If additional context exists, will it be released?

And most importantly, if the disputed statements were ever established as authentic:

Why would a candidate for the United States Congress describe ensuring American support for Israel as the "entire purpose" of his campaign?

Those are not questions about Jeremy Moss's religion.

They are questions about a candidate for Congress.

America Comes First in the Oath of Office

Whoever wins Michigan's 11th Congressional District will not take an oath to Israel.

He will not take an oath to a political party, lobbying organization or foreign government.

A member of Congress takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That doesn't prohibit supporting Israel. The United States has alliances and partnerships around the world, and members of Congress routinely disagree about how those relationships should work.

But American voters are entitled to know how a candidate prioritizes American interests when American and foreign-government interests diverge.

That is the legitimate issue buried underneath months of accusations and counteraccusations surrounding this recording.

Jeremy Moss has denied making the statements.

Ethan Baker is challenging voters to examine the evidence rather than simply accepting that denial.

Now the public deserves as much verifiable information as possible.

Because the ultimate question isn't whether Jeremy Moss supports Israel.

The question is what Jeremy Moss's priorities would be as a member of the United States Congress and whether the disputed recording tells voters anything reliable about those priorities.

Michigan's 11th District voters can examine the evidence and decide that for themselves.

Major Change Coming to Detroit Catholics as Archdiocese Prepares to Reassign Most Priests

 

Sweeping restructuring could move longtime pastors, replace Families of Parishes and reshape Catholic life across southeast Michigan

DETROIT — One of the most significant changes to Catholic parish life in metro Detroit in generations is now taking shape.

The Archdiocese of Detroit is preparing for a large-scale reassignment of priests across southeast Michigan, with most priests expected to move from their current assignments as the archdiocese reorganizes its 209 parishes into a new system of “pastorates.”

The changes will affect Catholic communities throughout Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Monroe, St. Clair and Lapeer counties.

Specific priest assignments are expected to be announced during the weekend of April 17-18, 2027, with the new pastorates and assignments beginning July 1, 2027. The broader implementation is expected to continue into 2028. 

For Catholics who have attended the same parish for decades — and in many cases developed close relationships with their pastors — the changes could be deeply personal.

Why Move So Many Priests?

The Archdiocese of Detroit says the sweeping movement of clergy is intentional.

Church officials say they consulted other dioceses that have undergone similar restructurings and were advised that moving priests broadly can help newly created parish groupings begin on more equal footing.

The archdiocese says moving priests also gives Archbishop Edward J. Weisenburger and his advisers an opportunity to match individual priests' talents, experience and pastoral strengths with the needs of the newly created pastorates.

There is another concern.

If several existing parishes are placed into one pastorate and one priest remains at his longtime parish while becoming pastor of the larger group, parishioners at his former parish could continue viewing him primarily as their priest. Other communities might consequently perceive the new pastor as favoring his former parish.

The archdiocese believes widespread reassignment can reduce that problem and give the newly formed communities what it describes as a “fresh start.” 

That does not mean every priest will automatically be transferred. Church officials say individual circumstances will be considered, but Catholics should expect significant movement among the clergy. 

A Church Facing a Very Different Reality

Behind the restructuring is a larger problem confronting the Catholic Church in southeast Michigan: the archdiocese simply does not look like it did several decades ago.

According to the Archdiocese of Detroit, the Catholic population it serves has fallen from a historic high of approximately 1.5 million people to about 900,000 today.

Mass attendance and participation in sacraments such as baptisms, first Communions and marriages have also declined.

At the same time, the archdiocese still has buildings, administrative structures and parish organizations developed to serve a considerably larger Catholic population. 

Perhaps even more important is the shrinking number of priests available for parish ministry.

The archdiocese says most of its active priests are now older than 50 and projects that by 2029 fewer than 165 priests will be serving in parish ministry. 

That mathematical reality makes the current parish structure increasingly difficult to maintain.

Families of Parishes Will Eventually Disappear

The restructuring also represents another major shift in how Detroit-area Catholic churches will operate.

The current Families of Parishes model will eventually be retired.

In its place will be pastorates — groups consisting of one or more parishes under a single pastor and leadership structure. Most pastorates are expected to have additional priests serving as parochial vicars, commonly called associate pastors.

The distinction matters.

Under the Families of Parishes system, multiple pastors can share responsibility across a family of churches. Under the new pastorate structure, authority will be more clearly centered on one pastor responsible for the entire pastorate.

Church officials say that structure should simplify administration and allow priests to spend more time celebrating the sacraments, preaching and ministering to parishioners rather than managing multiple administrative systems. 

Some Churches Could Eventually Close or Merge

Priest transfers are only one part of the restructuring.

Every parish in the Archdiocese of Detroit is being evaluated.

That includes healthy parishes, struggling parishes, parishes with schools and parishes with cemeteries. The archdiocese says no parish is automatically exempt from the review. 

Some parish communities could eventually merge, and some church buildings could close or cease offering regular weekend Masses.

However, it is important to distinguish what has already been decided from what remains under consideration.

The archdiocese says decisions about individual mergers and church closures were not predetermined. Officials are reviewing finances, sacramental participation, demographics, parish vitality and feedback from Catholics before final decisions are made. 

Tens of Thousands of Catholics Have Already Responded

The restructuring has generated substantial participation from Catholics across southeast Michigan.

More than 40,000 people participated in parish listening sessions, while more than 17,300 people completed an online survey about the proposed pastorate models.

The archdiocese also says it received thousands of emails and telephone calls containing comments and suggestions. 

That feedback is now being considered as officials refine the proposed parish configurations.

Archbishop Weisenburger ultimately will make the final decisions.

What Happens to Individual Priests?

Every priest is being considered individually.

Priests have been asked to complete a leadership inventory addressing their current assignments, strengths and abilities, preferences about future assignments, priests with whom they would like to serve and the type of ministry to which they believe they are called.

Archbishop Weisenburger and a Priest Missioning Team, which includes priests representing different age groups within the clergy, will use that information along with other factors when determining assignments. 

That means the process is not simply a matter of randomly rotating priests from one church to another.

It amounts to a broad reshuffling of Catholic clergy intended to fit a redesigned map of parish life.

For Parishioners, This Will Be Personal

Statistics explain why the Archdiocese of Detroit believes restructuring is necessary.

But statistics cannot completely describe what the changes will mean inside individual churches.

A pastor is not simply an administrator.

He may be the priest who baptized a family's children, celebrated their weddings, heard their confessions, visited relatives in the hospital and celebrated funeral Masses for their parents and grandparents.

Those relationships sometimes develop over many years.

The archdiocese itself acknowledges that the reassignment process could be difficult because of the strong bonds that develop between priests and parish communities. 

That may ultimately be one of the most challenging aspects of the restructuring.

The Catholic Church teaches that priests are ordained to serve the wider Church rather than a single congregation permanently. But for parishioners, Catholicism is also intensely local — the church where they attend Mass every Sunday, the priest they know and the community with which they worship.

Moving large numbers of priests therefore will not feel like an administrative restructuring to many Catholics.

It will feel like a change in their spiritual home.

A Defining Moment for the Catholic Church in Detroit

Archbishop Weisenburger has described the restructuring around three priorities: vibrant parishes, flourishing priests and a Church that is prepared for its mission in the future. 

Whether the new structure accomplishes those goals will become clearer only after it is implemented.

What is already clear is the scale of what is coming.

The Archdiocese of Detroit is not merely changing a few priest assignments or combining a handful of parishes. It is attempting to redesign its parish structure around the number of Catholics, priests and resources it expects to have in the years ahead.

For hundreds of thousands of Catholics across southeast Michigan, July 2027 could mark the beginning of a very different era of parish life.

The churches may remain familiar.

The people sitting in the pews may remain familiar.

But in many parishes, the priest standing at the altar will be someone new.

The Archdiocese’s official restructuring information and updates are available through its Archdiocesan Restructuring website.