Project 2025 denies climate change, strangles weather science, would cripple storm predictions

In this satellite view, two storms churn in the Atlantic Ocean at the same time that Milton spins in the Gulf of Mexico (lower left). This photo was taken about one hour before Milton was officially declared a hurricane. (Photo: NASA)

Oct. 8, 2024 by David Silverberg

Southwest Floridians know the drill when a hurricane is on the way: buy bottled water, stock up on batteries and canned foods, put up the storm shutters, fill the car and if necessary, get out of town.

But whether hunkering down at home or hitting the road, all eyes turn to news of the storm, whether on television, the Internet, mobile devices, weather apps or social media.

Much of the information on those media is the same—because it all comes from the federal government, which has the resources, the organization and the technology to provide it like no one else. And then there are the periodic updates from the National Hurricane Center, the National Weather Service, and the Hurricane Hunters who fly into the storms, that are treated like gospel from on high.

But if Project 2025 is implemented, all that information, which is now provided free to the public, would come at a price. The federal government agencies that collect and interpret the data would be broken up. And even the famous Hurricane Hunters would be shunted into a government agency that buys desks and manages the government’s real estate.

The fact that Project 2025 targets the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for elimination has caused public alarm and prompted criticism.

But what is it that Project 2025 actually seeks to do? What does Project 2025 specifically say when it comes to meteorology and government research? And what would be the results for everyday Americans if Project 2025 was actually implemented?

For all Americans, especially those living on the vulnerable, hurricane-prone Gulf “Paradise Coast” of Florida, the future of government meteorology is no academic concern.

Increasingly, it’s a matter of life and death.

Project 2025’s denial of climate change

Project 2025 is the sweeping, 887-page volume of very specific policy recommendations for presidential and legislative changes to be made under a conservative president, in this case, upon the election of Donald Trump. Increasingly infamous, it is a continuation of the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership program that has been issued every four years since 1980.

Project 2025’s weather and climate recommendations are contained in its chapter on the Department of Commerce, the agency where the weather services reside. The chapter appears under the byline of Thomas Gilman, who served as the Commerce Department’s chief financial officer and assistant secretary for administration during the Donald Trump administration. Prior to taking that position, which required Senate confirmation, Gilman worked for over 40 years in the automotive industry. There, he was employed by the Chrysler Corporation. He rose to be chief financial officer for its lending and financial arm, Chrysler Financial. In 2011 he oversaw Chrysler Financial’s sale to TD Bank Group.

*Thomas Gilman in 2019. (Photo: Dept. of Commerce)*

Most of the public’s attention—and alarm—has focused on Project 2025’s intention to do away with NOAA.

Project 2025 does indeed intend to eliminate NOAA and states so quite explicitly at the outset of the chapter (page 674): “The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.”

But that is not where Project 2025 will have its most damaging impact.

Rather, it is the fact that Project 2025 views itself at war with what it calls “the climate change alarm industry” and sees NOAA as “a colossal operation” that is “harmful to future US prosperity.”

Throughout the document, Project 2025 proposals are clearly aimed at eliminating independent, science and data-based conclusions that investigate, measure or confirm climate change. Instead it seeks to ensure that government conclusions come into line with administration policy rather than scientific evidence.

Project 2025 holds that NOAA, as a main driver of the “climate change alarm industry,” has a “mission emphasis on prediction and management [that] seems designed around the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable. That is not to say NOAA is useless, but its current organization corrupts its useful functions.”

But more than just eliminating NOAA, Project 2025 believes that science should bend to policy.

A key recommendation is that a new administration should: “Ensure Appointees Agree with Administration Aims. Scientific agencies like NOAA are vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims if political appointees are not wholly in sync with Administration policy. Particular attention must be paid to appointments in this area.”

In another section it argues that NOAA’s office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research “is… the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism. The preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded.”

When it comes to the work of the National Hurricane Center and the National Environmental Satellite Service, Project 2025 admits that the offices “provide important public safety and business functions as well as academic functions,” but it argues that “Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.”

Project 2025’s organizational mandates

In addition to changing the entire focus, tenor and scientific independence of government climatological and meteorological efforts, Project 2025 recommends extensive organizational changes.

To understand these recommendations and their impact, it is helpful to be familiar with the current system.

NOAA consists of six main offices:

The National Weather Service (NWS);
The National Ocean Service (NOS);
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR);
The National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS);
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); and
The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations and NOAA Corps.

Ironically, it was Republican President Richard Nixon who in 1970 consolidated the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Weather Bureau and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries into NOAA, which was made an office of the Commerce Department (although he wanted to make it a full-fledged Cabinet department). This occurred in the wake of 1969’s horrendous Hurricane Camille, which devastated the Louisiana Gulf coast and then—like Hurricane Helene—went north; ultimately dumping its accumulated moisture far from any coast in Nelson County, Va.

Since its creation, NOAA has evolved until it assumed its current form with different offices to deal with different aspects of weather, climate and technology.

Project 2025 sees this evolution in a negative light, especially from a budgetary standpoint.

“NOAA garners $6.5 billion of the department’s $12 billion annual operational budget and accounts for more than half of the department’s personnel in non-decadal Census years (2021 figures),” it notes. The offices, as noted previously, “form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future US prosperity. This industry’s mission emphasis on prediction and management seems designed around the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable. That is not to say NOAA is useless, but its current organization corrupts its useful functions. It should be broken up and downsized.”

It continues: “NOAA today boasts that it is a provider of environmental information services, a provider of environmental stewardship services, and a leader in applied scientific research. Each of these functions could be provided commercially, likely at lower cost and higher quality.”

Project 2025 wants to make NWS (National Weather Service) a revenue-generating operation. It argues that since studies have found that consumer-oriented forecasts and warnings are better provided by local broadcasts and private companies like AccuWeather, NWS “should fully commercialize its forecasting operations”—i.e., charge for its products. This, it states, would bring in revenue, make it compete in a commercial weather marketplace and the profits could be invested in more research and data tailored to customers’ needs.

NWS would become a “performance-based organization,” which in management parlance means it would have measurable goals, set metrics and performance standards—i.e., it would take on the characteristics of a for-profit company rather than a scientific laboratory.

OAR (Oceanic and Atmospheric Research) would be reduced since Project 2025 views much of its work as duplicative of the National Hurricane Center. All of its laboratories, undersea research and other research efforts “should be reviewed with an aim of consolidation and reduction of bloat.”

NOS (National Ocean Service) would have its functions transferred to the US Coast Guard and the US Geologic Survey. While Project 2025 doesn’t say so explicitly, this would presumably result in its disestablishment.

The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, which provides the ships, planes, drones and other hardware used by NOAA agencies, including the famous Hurricane Hunters, “should be broken up and its assets reassigned to the General Services Administration or to other agencies.”

Analysis: Organizational changes

Project 2025 decimates the current structure of weather science and reporting by the US federal government—as it’s intended to do.

The end of the Hurricane Hunters?

*The men and women of the NOAA Hurricane Hunters with a P-3 Orion, one of their primary aircraft. (Photo: NOAA)*

Ever since a pilot flew his training aircraft directly into the eye of a hurricane on a bet in 1943, hurricane-hunting pilots and air personnel have been taking up the challenge of measuring storms.

Today they’re known as the Hurricane Hunters and they’re the stuff of legend: the best pilots in the world flying in the most dangerous and challenging weather, bringing back precious, life-saving data.

Project 2025 does not explicitly state that it would abolish the Hurricane Hunters. However, it would break up the NOAA air fleet and reassign its assets to other agencies, most notably the General Services Administration, which oversees the contracting, purchasing and management of the civilian federal government—i.e., science and meteorology is not its main mission.

This would be tantamount to ending the Hurricane Hunters. The whole structure of the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations is designed around the NOAA mission and operates according to its needs. To disperse this elaborate, intricate—and effective—organization, its people and its assets, which include aircraft, vessels, drones, other technologies and their support network, would for all intents and purposes destroy or at the very least disrupt a vast swath of American scientific capabilities when it comes to weather and climate.

And when it comes to hurricanes and dangerous storms, it would create a gaping hole in the public’s awareness and preparedness that could prove deadly just at the moment the nation needs it most.

Crippling research and ignoring the oceans

Project 2025 takes particular aim at oceanic research. OAR and NOS would be broken up and OAR likely eliminated altogether. This targeting appears to be caused by more than just the expense of maintaining these institutions—it is likely the result of oceanic research being a major source of data proving the existence of climate change

This would not only eliminate a vital source of research about the state of the oceans in general, it would also likely eliminate data of critical use to the US Navy, Coast Guard, Merchant Marine and mariners of all types. It would harm national security and impact attempts to enforce maritime borders and provide coastal protection to say nothing of private boating safety.

For-profit weather

It is in Project 2025’s intention to turn the National Weather Service into a for-profit entity that everyday Americans who turn to their television stations and apps for weather information would be impacted.

Accurate, useful government-provided weather data accessible to all Americans is essentially something people have purchased with the tax dollars they pay to the federal government. Suddenly demanding payment for this data would be a form of robbery, taking from them vital information that they already purchased with their taxes.

Free access to government-gathered weather data has also made possible a robust industry of repackaging, interpreting and disseminating that data. It’s behind every weather broadcast and specialized media like the Weather Channel as well as countless apps, blogs and individual weather efforts.

All of this would now be jeopardized as the US government sold its products to the highest bidder.

That sale, or auction, would likely put government weather data in the hands of a few extremely wealthy corporations or individuals—like Elon Musk—who could then repackage it, resell it or withhold it at will. It would destroy the credibility of government-collected weather data and potentially give rise to warped or distorted reporting in the service of private political or commercial aims rather than objective reality.

It would also put a cost on weather data whose price could then be manipulated by the individuals or corporations that owned it. Further, it would create a fragmented and unequal view of the state of the weather and climate, reducing the credibility and reliability of information on which every human being on the planet depends.

Whatever husk of NWS that would remain after its dismantlement by Project 2025 would have to have profit goals, not scientific aims or objectives, as its priority. That would result in a warping and distortion of NWS’ critical, primary mission pursuing realistic, objective science, which it might no longer be able to meet.

Analysis: Climate change denial and the Florida model

Bryan Koon, Florida’s Emergency Management Director, tries to respond to state senators’ questions without mentioning the term “climate change” in a 2015 exchange. Then-Gov. Rick Scott had informally forbidden use of the term in state government. The entire discussion can be seen in a 2-minute, 12-second video on YouTube. (Image: Fox13)

At the core of Project 2025’s goals in re-engineering American meteorology is the intention to deny the reality of climate change.

In this, Americans can see a preview of a Project 2025’s end result in the state of Florida.

Over and over again, as concern over climate change rose nationally and its consequences impacted the state with increasing severity, Florida officials responded with increasingly vehement denialism.

In 2015 then-Gov. Rick Scott (R) informally banned use of the term in state government.

His successor, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), initially reversed much of Scott’s anti-environmentalism. However, when DeSantis began a run for the presidency in 2023 on an “anti-woke,” anti-Green New Deal platform, he fully embraced climate denialism.

Ultimately, the state legislature, seeking to curry favor with DeSantis and add to their own denialist credentials, officially banned use of the term in official state documents. In March 2024 the legislature passed House Bill 1645, which struck the term “climate change” from Florida law and official documents.

“Radical green zealots want to impose their climate agenda on people through restrictions, regulations, and taxes,” DeSantis stated at the time he signed the bill.

All of this official denialism did absolutely nothing to stop the onslaught of climate-change induced weather, disasters and challenges. (As this is written, Hurricane Milton is advancing on the Florida peninsula as a Category 5 hurricane, immediately following the ravages of Hurricane Helene.) In fact, official state climate denialism has impeded local efforts to prepare and reverse the effects of climate change in communities’ own front yards, as can be seen in flooding, storms, eroding beaches and wild, unpredictable weather over a fragile and vulnerable landmass.

As DeSantis wanted to “make America Florida” as he put it in his campaign slogan, so Project 2025 would make climate denialism a pillar of American policy. Project 2025 views efforts to respond, reduce or resist climate change as “the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable.”

When added together, it is clear that Project 2025 seeks to alter or censor government climatological and meteorological science and research in order to deny climate change. NOAA agencies would not be following the data and drawing conclusions from it; they would be following administration directives and tailoring their findings to accommodate political policy.

This should not be surprising given former President Donald Trump’s past dismissal of climate change as a “hoax,” his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords or his effort to alter the cone of a hurricane with a Sharpie. Nor should it be surprising given that Gilman, the chapter’s author, spent 40 years working in the fossil fuel automotive industry.

Project 2025 would leave the United States naked, vulnerable and at the mercy of climate change, without the research, resources or will to meet its challenges.

And that would result in countless devastated communities and potentially millions of dead Americans.

Science in service to the nation—or not

Since colonial days Americans have been concerned with weather. As a nation of farmers, they were at its mercy and they needed some way to predict its patterns.

Two of America’s founders were, in a way, weathermen. Benjamin Franklin provided long-range forecasts that farmers used for planting in his Poor Richard’s Almanack, a very popular bestselling annual book. Thomas Jefferson, a planter, regularly took weather measurements and recorded them. On July 4, 1776 he noted that the temperature in Philadelphia reached a high of 76 degrees Fahrenheit.

In 1870, seeking to create a national weather measuring system and communicate it by telegraph, Congress created a weather office in the US Army’s Signal Division “for the Benefit of Commerce.” In 1890, following a presidential request, Congress transferred weather reporting responsibilities to a civilian US Weather Bureau in the Department of Agriculture.

Ever since then the United States government has invested in and steadily expanded meteorological and climatological research and technology. The fruits of that steady, sometimes painful, 154-year investment and effort have resulted in the most scientifically advanced, accurate, and capable weather and climate establishment in the world.

The federal government has also organized and refined its weather and climate offices to reflect changing conditions and improve their capabilities.

And throughout this period, just as the weather and climate affected everyone in the territory of the United States, so the US government freely shared its findings and results with all its citizens and the world.

Today people ordinarily think of weather forecasting in personal terms: Will it rain tomorrow? Should I bring an umbrella? Or, more importantly: Where will the storm hit?

But beyond just tomorrow’s predictions, increasingly accurate and sophisticated weather reporting and forecasting has been an incalculably powerful force multiplier for the American military, which can plan operations around it. It has enabled American agriculture to become the most productive in the world. It has made transportation more efficient and it is absolutely essential for air travel and the movement of goods by all modalities. It has, as the first weather office intended, benefited commerce.

The products of American meteorological prowess are everywhere and pervasive. As a rising tide lifts all boats, weather awareness and knowledge benefits all recipients.

Government meteorological efforts have protected Americans from the ravages of the most extreme weather. They have helped to make cities more resilient and enabled planning, whether in agriculture, construction or trade. Indeed, entire commodities markets depend on weather information provided by government research and monitoring.

Right now America is in a crisis as the climate alters due to human influence.

One response is to adapt, take measures that build resilience and preparedness, try to slow global warming, and raise awareness so that every individual can make some small effort to protect and preserve human life on the planet.

The other response is to deny that climate change is happening, to outlaw mention of “climate change,” to twist science to meet preconceived notions, or to ignore it altogether. It’s a response as likely to be successful as the Inquisition’s attempt to stamp out the Copernican solar system by banning the books that explained it.

This is the approach of Project 2025, which puts it into detailed, specific bureaucratic recommendations. If implemented by a second Donald Trump administration, it would cripple science, make Americans vulnerable, destroy cities and accelerate the very processes it seeks to deny. It would also dismantle the greatest research and applied science endeavor in history, one that has been of incalculable benefit to the United States, its citizens and the rest of the world.

Just as they have a choice between two candidates and between democracy and dictatorship in this year’s elections, when they cast their votes, Americans have a choice between ignorance, denial and disaster or knowledge, realism and progress.

On that choice on every ballot hangs the fate of the federal government’s weather and climate enterprise—and arguably, the future of human life on this planet.

This is one of a series of examinations of the implications of Project 2025 for Southwest Florida and the nation. Other articles in the series are:

Project 2025 would end federal flood insurance, devastate Southwest Florida and coastal communities

Project 2025 remake of FEMA would hit communities hard after disasters

Project 2025 takes aim at education—and Collier County, Fla.

Liberty lives in light

Project 2025 takes aim at education—and Collier County, Fla.

*Like all American schools, Southwest Florida’s classrooms would feel the impact of Project 2025. (Image:* *First Focus on Children*)

Sept. 3, 2024 by David Silverberg

If it came to pass that Donald Trump won the election and his administration implemented Project 2025’s educational proposals, how would Florida’s parents, teachers, students and school staff be affected?

Project 2025 is the sweeping, 887-page volume of very specific policy recommendations for presidential and legislative changes to be made under a conservative president, in this case, upon the election of Donald Trump. It is a continuation of the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership program that has been issued every four years since 1980.

This year Project 2025 includes recruitment of personnel, training for those people and a 180-day Playbook for immediate implementation should there be a change of administrations.

Donald Trump has disavowed any knowledge of, or familiarity with, Project 2025, although the Heritage Foundation organizers say that he implemented 67 percent of their recommendations in his first administration. Former Trump staffers have been heavily involved in Project 2025’s formulation, including Sen. James David “JD” Vance (R-Ohio), Trump’s running mate.

When it comes to education, the Project 2025 recommendation that has received the most attention is the disestablishment of the US Department of Education (ED).

The very first sentence of Project 2025’s education chapter states: “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.”

That proposal has alarmed parents, teachers and education experts. It has energized Trump’s opponents, whether Democrats, independents or traditional Republicans who value learning. It is the first thing that critics cite when they attack Project 2025’s education ideas.

“We are not going to let him eliminate the Department of Education that funds our public schools!” Vice President Kamala Harris declared in her speech to the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 23, to intense and prolonged applause.

Trump, despite his disavowals of Project 2025, has doubled down on ending the department.

During a rambling X interview with Elon Musk on Aug. 13 he pledged to “close the Department of Education, move education back to the states.” As recently as Friday, Aug. 30, he repeated his position at a Washington, DC conference held by Moms for Liberty—who also advocate eliminating the department.

Beyond the agency

Project 2025’s education recommendations go well beyond just ending the department.

They are contained in Chapter 11 (page 319), a sweeping chapter of 44 pages including citations, that covers a wide variety of education-related policies and proposals. It appears under the byline of Lindsey Burke, the Heritage foundation’s director of the Center for Education Policy. She has worked at the Heritage Foundation for over 16 years.

Project 2025 gathers up all the ideas that have been circulating in conservative circles, some of very long standing, and then puts them into tangible, concrete recommendations for action.

Among these ideas are many that are already in force in Florida, including expanding non-public school alternatives like charter schools, providing parents with vouchers to use in non-public schools, lowering accreditation requirements for non-public schools, passing legislation to prevent the teaching of critical race theory, and passing a “Parents Bill of Rights” that has led to practices such as book bans.

All of these would have significant consequences if implemented nationally.

But eliminating the Department of Education is Project 2025’s big idea, its headline and the one getting the most attention.

Looking ahead at the consequences of such an action is necessarily speculative, of course. But some results can be imagined—and the Collier County, Fla., public school district provides a microcosm that can give a sense of the impact at the grassroots level.

A quick history: the Department of Education

Republicans have sought termination of the current Department of Education ever since it came into being in 1980, when it was split off from the then Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

According to the department’s official history, a Department of Education was first created in 1867 to collect data about the nation’s schools. It had a budget of $15,000 and four employees. This happened in the midst of Reconstruction and the first wave of education for freed people and their children.

The next year the department was demoted to an Office of Education because of concerns that as a Cabinet department it would exert too much control over local schools.

However, starting in the 1950s public interest in education policy began to rise again along with the civil rights movement and the effort to end segregation. Segregated black schools in the South were woefully inadequate, underfunded, and discriminatory and along with the national effort to end segregation the nation made an effort to raise the general level of education for all students regardless of race.

In 1980, backed by the National Education Association, Congress passed, and President Jimmy Carter signed, the Department of Education Organization Act, making it a stand-alone Cabinet department again.

Project 2025 has a less benign view of the department’s creation. In its version, advocates of expanded education funding didn’t like the existing scattershot approach to education because “a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations. Eventually, the National Education Association made a deal and backed the right presidential candidate— Jimmy Carter—who successfully lobbied for and delivered the Cabinet-level agency.”

(Today, Project 2025 recommends rescinding the National Education Association’s congressional charter because it views it as “a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers.”)

Ever since its establishment, Republicans have made ED a target and pledged to eliminate it. President Ronald Reagan, who took office immediately after Carter, was bent on ending it but the person he tapped to do the deed, Secretary of Education Terrel Bell, instead formed a commission that issued a report, A Nation at Risk, proposing reforms. Reagan liked the report so much he claimed it as his own and the department was saved, changing its focus to raising the quality of public education.

Ever since then abolishing the Department of Education has become part of the Republican mantra, an essential article of faith about which nothing has been done in actuality.

In 2016, during a campaign speech in—of course, Florida—then-candidate Donald Trump said “there is so much waste” at the department that he planned to cut it down to “shreds.”

When he became president he appointed Betsy DeVos to be secretary of the despised agency. Whatever else she did as secretary, she did not abolish the department—and as president, neither did he.

And so it stands today, a target of Project 2025.

Breaking the big bank

The US Department of Education has been described as “a big bank with a small policy shop attached.”

It’s an apt description. For all the rhetoric and misconceptions to the contrary, ED’s primary role is administering grants and financial aid to school systems and students around the country. While it tries to maintain and raise academic standards and eliminate educational inequities in school systems, it largely does this through the finances it administers.

Project 2025 would end the federal role in supporting education financially.

“To the extent that federal taxpayer dollars are used to fund education programs, those funds should be block granted to states without strings, eliminating the need for many federal and state bureaucrats,” it states. “Eventually, policymaking and funding should take place at the state and local level, closest to the affected families.”

Currently, federal funding can be a big boost to the school districts that receive it.

Collier County, Fla., illustrates this. In its tentative 2024-25 budget released on July 31, the Collier County School District estimated it would receive $7,243,150 in direct federal funding. Not all of this will come from ED; other federal agencies like the Department of Agriculture, which administers nutritional programs, also provide funding. However, it is a good indicator of the kind of federal support that primary and secondary school districts receive.

That’s not the only federal money Collier County receives. It also receives federal money passed on through state agencies and that’s much greater: $79,023,516. (Impressive as these figures might be, the vast majority of the district’s funding comes from local taxation: over $842 million.)

The funding goes for everything from salaries, to supplies, to services to furniture and more.

*Breakdown of special, non-tax revenues and expenditures for Collier County Public Schools. (CCPS)*

Below, where the money goes: Collier County grant recipients, amounts and officials overseeing the programs for the 2024-25 budget year. This includes grants from non-government, non-profit and philanthropic sources. (CCPS)

(Perhaps surprisingly, the federal Department has no local influence on curricula, which is entirely formulated at the local level.)

So assuming that Project 2025 was implemented as proposed and ED was terminated, the very first thing that would happen in Collier County is the school system would stand to lose up to $86 million in federal funding, whether directly or through the state.

It might make that money back, if the state—which would now have total control over all non-local educational funding—decided to be generous or at least maintain current funding levels.

The omens for this, however, are not favorable because DeSantis, i.e., the state, has a propensity and a preference for cutting appropriations for educational institutions.

A glaring illustration of this occurred in the 2025 state budget when DeSantis vetoed $98 million in higher education funding. Florida Gulf Coast University, the local institution of higher learning, had $16.3 million excised from appropriations the legislature had otherwise approved.

Collier County public schools were not spared either: $2 million in approved appropriations were cut from its pilot education program for pre-kindergarten children.

Collier lost 1,000 seats as a result of the pandemic and needed to ready young children from all backgrounds for kindergarten. The money would have been used for 10 new modular pre-kindergarten classrooms and modification of existing facilities so that 160 more 3 and 4 year olds and their parents could participate in school programs near their homes and elementary schools. Educators hoped it would establish strong bonds between the families and schools and prepare the children to enter the classroom. It would also train parents—from very diverse backgrounds, languages and cultures—to be school-ready, teach their children early literacy and prepare the children for schoolrooms.

The fact that the budget request was made by no less a personage than state Sen. Kathleen Passidomo (R-28-Naples), president of the Florida Senate, made no difference to DeSantis at all.

So on a practical level, terminating the Department of Education would at the very least inject great uncertainty into Collier County public schools’ cash flow. At worst it could result in a serious loss of revenue that would affect all aspects of school operations, resulting in a potentially significant reduction of capability and resources that would negatively affect students, teachers and staff. Furthermore, it would do this in a county that is rapidly growing and needs new school facilities and resources to handle the influx.

If Project 2025 were implemented these kinds of losses would apply across the country as all school districts lost federal funding.

Project 2025’s recommendation that money be provided to states “without strings” is also dangerous. The reason there are “strings” on federal money now is to ensure that the funds are used for their intended purpose and not misappropriated or diverted into private pockets. Project 2025 hates the “many federal and state bureaucrats” currently administering and overseeing federal education funds. However, the reason they’re there is to ensure that the money is spent properly. Without them there would be no oversight, regulation or enforcement.

Florida has already seen the fruits of this. The DeSantis “war on woke” in academia has also been a gold rush for favored politicians taking over academic positions for ideological reasons.

Nowhere was this clearer than at the state’s University of Florida, where former senator Ben Sasse, an outspoken conservative Republican, was appointed president in February 2023. Not only was he paid a million dollars in salary but he ballooned his office’s spending on favored consultants and provided high-priced remote positions for former staffers and Republican officials. When all this emerged, Sasse resigned and people he appointed were terminated.

Under Project 2025’s proposals, the removal of “strings” on federal funding would no doubt open the floodgates for a season of unrestrained corruption and turn ivory towers into feeding troughs.

Analysis: Going back?

More broadly than just money, Project 2025’s measures would subvert the entire educational effort of the past 70 years to make American quality education more expansive, equitable and accessible to everyone. After all, it was an educational case, Brown vs. Board of Education that ended legal segregation in the first place.

Eliminating the department “would shutter thousands of public schools, end supports for low-income students, divert taxpayer funds to the private education of wealthy students and, ultimately, destabilize public education altogether,” argues Lily Klam, director of education policy at the First Focus on Children advocacy group.

The reason that the federal government intervened in education in the first place was because the racial and economic disparities among different school systems, especially in the segregated South, were so great that only the federal government was capable of correcting them. Then, starting in the Reagan administration, it sought to improve public education’s quality and outcomes.

These have been the thrust of federal efforts, as embodied in the Department of Education, since its founding. It is premised on the idea that a uniformly educated, literate, thinking population benefits the nation, is essential for democracy, and makes the country stronger.

This is the notion that Project 2025 is challenging. Project 2025—and the whole anti-public education movement—whether consciously or not, would bring back the past disparities in education and make education uneven and uncertain. By undermining public education and putting the states entirely in charge, it would revive past abuses and disparities.

Ultimately, wrecking public education, as Project 2025 seeks, would lead, not just to racial inequalities, but to socio-economic and political ones as well. While the entire movement of American education since independence has been to make Americans more prosperous, educated and equal as citizens, Project 2025 would make them less prosperous, less educated and less equal. It would ultimately create an undemocratic class of literate masters ruling ignorant serfs.

When it comes to education, this is the “again” in the slogan “make America great again.”

And preventing this outcome is the “back” in the slogan “we won’t go back.”

This article is one of a series looking at the impact of Project 2025 on Southwest Florida and the nation. Others are:

Project 2025 remake of FEMA would hit communities hard after disasters

Project 2025 would end federal flood insurance, devastate Southwest Florida and coastal communities

Liberty lives in light

*Jessica Cosden, a teacher and Cape Coral councilmember, teaches a Cape Coral class in 2017. (Photo: Author’s collection)*

Has MAGA fever broken? America’s joy and Republican rebellion in Collier County, Fla.

Kelly Mason, chair of the Collier County School Board, displays a flyer from the county Republican Executive Committee accusing schools of ‘indoctrination’ at the Aug. 21 meeting of the Board. (Image: CCPS)

Aug. 26, 2024 by David Silverberg

Has the Make America Great Again (MAGA) fever broken?

That certainly seems to be the case in Collier County, Fla., a very conservative, very Republican, extremely Trumpist corner of the Sunshine State.

It’s too soon to say that where Collier County goes, so goes the nation. But last Tuesday, Aug. 20, Republican voters’ weariness and disgust led them to defeat the candidates endorsed by a Collier County Republican Executive Committee (CCREC, referred to here as REC) that they regarded as having grown increasingly authoritarian.

It seems to show that even in this Trumpist stronghold, MAGA madness has reached its limits.

It also seems that the majority of Americans have had enough—enough of MAGAism and Donald Trumpism.

Both Collier County’s revolt, a statewide repudiation of candidates endorsed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and a national wave of enthusiasm for Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz (D) appear driven by the same things: weariness, disgust, outrage and now, a determination to do something about it. Americans have been living with Donald Trump’s “hatred, prejudice and rage” and they’re clearly ready to move on.

But to see it erupt among Collier County Republicans is truly a revelation.

The rebirth of joy

The national shift in public attitudes was best put by Walz, when he was introduced as Vice President Kamala Harris’ vice presidential running mate on Aug. 6 in Philadelphia.

“Thank you, Madam Vice President, for the trust you put in me,” he said. “But, maybe more so, thank you for bringing back the joy.”

Joy. That’s not a word that has been used at all in American politics since 2015. Clearly, it’s something Americans like and it’s what’s giving the Harris campaign the giddy momentum it’s enjoying in the race for the White House.

The four-year presidential election cycle not only marks political eras but emotional ones as well, with leading political personalities shaping the behavior and attitudes of the public.

That was certainly true in Florida. From 2016 to 2020 during Trump’s presidency, aspiring Republican politicians aped his attitudes and behavior both in campaigning and governing.

This was extremely apparent among Southwest Florida Republican candidates at that time. It could be seen in their dark conspiracy theories and delusional lies, their threats and insults toward their opponents and perceived enemies and also in their embrace of violent rhetoric and gunplay.

“There are individuals who fire this thing up and the biggest one of all, I think, is Donald Trump,” observed Francis Rooney, the former ambassador and congressman for Southwest Florida, at a panel to Reduce the Rancor, this year. “He exerts a magnetic influence over an awful lot of Republicans.”

The COVID-19 pandemic, which broke out in 2020, also had a profound impact on public attitudes. With Trump at first dismissing the danger and then fighting the experts and scientists who were trying to protect the public, his denigration of expertise, knowledge and competence leached down to the grassroots.

Trump’s attitudes really took root in Florida, his adopted state.

In 2018 Ron DeSantis, a former congressman, had his primary bid for the governorship supercharged by Trump’s endorsement. He won and as governor pursued Trumplike policies. It worked for him; in 2022 he was re-elected to the governorship with a decisive 20 point majority.

Starting in 2023, though, DeSantis tried to out-Trump Trump in his own bid for the White House. He launched a comprehensive “anti-woke” crusade in every aspect of Florida culture and society, hoping to ride it nationally to the presidency and “make America, Florida,” to use his own slogan. In this he was aided by a completely subservient Republican super-majority in the state legislature that raced to the rim of reason in devising ever more radical measures both to curry favor with him and pander to their most extreme constituents.

Ultimately, it didn’t work. Trump treated DeSantis as a traitor, belittled and insulted him and put an end to his presidential candidacy before it even got to the state primaries. But the legacy of DeSantis’ anti-woke war and Trump’s dominance in the state lingers on in its politics.

With Harris at the top of the national Democratic ticket and a pro-choice state constitutional amendment on the November ballot that seems to have mobilized the state’s pro-choice voters, Florida Democrats now sense a chance to turn Florida from seemingly overwhelmingly Republican to Democratic.

“Ron DeSantis has lost his culture war,” said Nichole “Nikki” Fried, the state Democratic chair after Tuesday’s primary results. “What we saw last night is that Floridians across the state are tired of the divisiveness. They are tired of the culture wars.”

“Floridians are tired of extremism, and we’re ready to bring back some sanity, integrity, decency and true public servants,” agreed Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the Democratic candidate for Senate.

Not everyone is sanguine about flipping the state. As political operative and Lincoln Project co-founder Rick Wilson put it in an Aug. 8 blog post: “I’m not saying Florida is in play. I’m not saying Florida is in play. I’m not saying Florida is in play. I’m not saying Florida is in play. I’m not saying Florida is in play. I’m not saying Florida is in play. But maybe you could see a sliver of a tiny edge of a glimmer on the horizon of Florida being in play, given the abortion rights and recreational weed ballot initiatives and a souring MAGA base.”

The case of Collier County, Fla.

This year Collier County Republicans rose in revolt against the official MAGA leadership of their Republican Party in the REC. It was a quiet revolt. There were no barricades in the streets. No one got shot. It happened in voting booths.

First, in the City of Naples on March 19, Republican voters defeated the REC-endorsed candidate for mayor, Ted Blankenship, who came in last in a three-way race.

Then, in the county at large, Republican voters defeated a whole slate of REC-endorsed candidates with the exception of one. With only a 25 percent turnout of the county electorate, it could hardly be said to be a wave. But make no mistake: it was a complete repudiation of MAGA directives and domination.

It needs to be emphasized just how remarkable this repudiation is because until now, Collier County has been dominated by its own mini-Trump and the dynamics of the electorate’s relationship to him reflects in microcosm the nation’s larger relationship to Donald Trump.

In Collier County, the mini-Trump is Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III, a prominent farmer and grocer.

First gaining notoriety with his 2020 denunciation of George Floyd on Facebook, which brought accusations of racism, Oakes really rose to prominence in fighting public health measures and denouncing vaccines during the COVID pandemic. He gained fame among anti-vaccine and anti-mask activists, defied county health regulations and authorities and using his newly-opened store, Seed to Table, as a platform, began shaping local politics to his liking, which meant promoting the most extreme, Trumpist, MAGA candidates and policies.

The parallels between Oakes and Trump are truly striking. Both are businessmen and entrepreneurs. Indeed, it can be argued that Oakes at this point is more successful than Trump because his businesses, while suffering setbacks, are not mired in anything like the debt, litigation and criminal prosecution that face Trump’s.

Both men are loud, outspoken, mercurial, unpredictable, rebellious, litigious, bullying, insulting and petty. Both are extreme in their beliefs and language. Both have been accused of racism. Both have flirted with political violence. Both indulge in bizarre conspiracy theories. Both value fanatical loyalty over competence. Both cultivated an adoring personal following. Both are active politically, endorsing and boosting candidates who share their beliefs. Both verbally attacked scientific findings and public health officials during the COVID pandemic. Both denied the results of the 2020 election. Both were present in Washington, DC on Jan. 6, 2021. Both praised the rioters who attacked the Capitol. Both have been accused of lawbreaking: Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies; Oakes was issued citations for non-compliance with county regulations but never paid any penalties when Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) issued an executive order cancelling fines and pardoning violations of local COVID-related regulations.

And Oakes worships Trump. “I love our president and his family with every bit of my being!” Oakes posted on Facebook after a phone call with the then-President in December 2020. “I love all that he has given for our country and all that he stands for!”

Oakes was elected a state committeeman on the REC in 2020, which gave him an official Republican Party platform for his beliefs. He founded Citizens Awake Now Political Action Committee (CANPAC) to support candidates he favored.

It was effective. In the 2022 elections he won with a full house: he ousted a commissioner who voted for mask mandates against his wishes and two of his candidates won seats on the Collier County Board of Commissioners, giving it a MAGA majority. Three of his endorsed candidates won seats on the School Board of Collier County.

The victories paid off with governing successes at the county level: ordinances to exempt the county from federal law, to prevent future mask mandates or vaccine requirements (a duplication of state law), a resolution denouncing public health measures, a resolution opposing Amendment 4 to the state constitution guaranteeing reproductive rights, and termination of fluoridation of the county’s water.

While these measures had the willing support of Oakes’ MAGA followers, there was occasional defiance and that defiance was met with the full arsenal of litigation, denunciation, insult and rage.

When Kelly Mason (formerly Lichter), the Oakes-backed chair of the School Board, cast the deciding vote for a superintendent candidate against Oakes’ wishes, he denounced her as a “traitor.”

Then, this year, Oakes and his REC again backed a slate of candidates. These included a candidate for Board of Commissioners who would have ousted the incumbent Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-District 3), two school board candidates, and candidates for supervisor of elections and property appraiser. Oakes himself intended to run to keep his seat as Republican state committeeman but failed to file his paperwork on time and was disqualified.

It needs to be emphasized how unusual it is to have a county Republican Party endorse primary candidates. Most normal local parties—regardless of their partisan labels—are careful never to choose among competing local candidates; indeed, Party rules forbid it. But Collier County’s REC has ignored that.

What is more, Oakes and the REC employed a full arsenal of Trumpist weapons against what it perceived, not merely as fellow Republicans it opposed, but as full-blown enemies. These people, all Republicans of long standing and often very conservative, were blasted as Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) or—more terrible—as Democrats.

But even more galling to non-MAGA Republicans was the REC’s imperiousness in simply ordering Party members how to vote and employing what they regarded as lies and threats to get its way. In this it closely imitated Trump’s own wild and unfounded accusations against his perceived enemies. There was an actual threat of bringing criminal prosecution against the Collier County Citizens Value Political Action Committee (CCCVPAC), an independent Republican organization, for daring to defy the REC and endorse its own slate of candidates.

In assessing the results of the primary election for the county supervisor of elections race, Oakes himself posted on Facebook that, “The reason we lost EVERY single [Supervisor of Elections] race in the state of Florida is because our party will not unify.”

He concluded (as posted): “I pray that ALL of you learn from this and unite behind our party in the future should our father God even allows us to keep this Constitutional Republic in place after this election.”

(The Paradise Progressive reached out to Oakes for comment on this story but had not received a response as of posting time.)

School Board controversy

The most recent example of someone standing up against false REC accusations came the day after the election, last Wednesday, Aug. 21, at a meeting of the Collier County School Board.

Kelly Mason, the Board chair, complained that an REC-issued campaign flyer had accused the School Board of “indoctrinating” students.

The printed flyer from the REC included a quote from John Meo, the REC chair, accusing the School Board of indoctrinating students with believing the media, supporting President Joe Biden and advocating Communism and endorsing two opponents to incumbent School Board members.

*The REC flyer (front and back) referenced by Kelly Mason. The two candidates listed both lost their races for the School Board in the Aug. 20 primary election. (Flyer: CCREC)*

Mason challenged two members of the Board, Tim Moshier (District-5) and Jerry Rutherford (District-1), both of whom are members of the REC, to provide specific examples of student “indoctrination.”

“I think it’s an opportunity, with this indoctrination that’s going on that we need to be aware of, that the superintendent needs to be aware of, and we can address this head-on,” she said. “So, can you please provide the Board with the examples that this has been going on? And then after tonight I would like to be done with this conversation.”

Moshier fumblingly mentioned that there had been “a couple of little issues” and then an incident, which he could only vaguely recall, of a sticker in a classroom (there had been extensive controversy over “safe space” stickers in Florida classrooms in the past two years). A supposedly offensive image on the School Board website that he mentioned turned out to be a Planned Parenthood image entirely unrelated to Collier County that was used in local campaign propaganda.

Rutherford, for his part, wasn’t even capable of turning on the microphone on his desk. He did not provide any examples of “indoctrination.”

At the end of the discussion Mason said: “Since November ’22, we all got here at the same time, this [indoctrination] is not happening. So, I’m asking you tonight and Mr. Moshier, what examples [do we have] that this is going on because we need to address it—and it sounds like it’s not happening. Is that correct?”

Moshier replied: “I don’t know whether it is or not.”

The dialogue highlighted, not only the MAGA REC’s use of reckless and unsupported accusations and falsehoods but also the incompetence, incapability and inexperience of REC-endorsed candidates.

(The entire discussion can be seen in a 6-minute, 2-second video on YouTube.)

“Angry, inexperienced individuals”

The only criteria for a REC/Oakes endorsement has been fanatical MAGAism and personal loyalty and obedience to the REC; not qualifications, experience or education.

As Oakes himself put it at his Patriot Fest rally on March 19, 2022: “I don’t want to hear about what IQ someone has or what level of education someone has,” when it comes to candidate qualifications. “Common sense and some back is all we need right now.” As he also said before the Board of Commissioners on Feb. 13 in regard to science-based public health measures: “We don’t trust the white coats anymore.”

The result has been the election of glaringly unprepared and incapable people to county bodies. When this was going to be extended to technical positions affecting the operations of the county—the Supervisor of Elections and the Property Appraiser—even the most loyal Republicans had enough. Michael Lyster, endorsement chairman of CCCVPAC called the REC-endorsed candidates “angry, inexperienced individuals.”

This valuing of fanaticism over competence is a feature of Trumpism at the national level. It was an aspect of Trump’s term as president and it is an aspect of Project 2025, which is building a database of obedient loyalists to take on the nation’s most sensitive positions regardless of their qualifications, preparation or expertise—or lack thereof.

A tropical tremor

As this is written, there are 71 days to Election Day, Nov. 5. That’s an eternity in politics and a lot can happen that could change the entire political equation.

But what can be said with some certainty is that at the moment, Harris and Walz seem to be riding a wave of joy and enthusiasm that looks like it will carry them to the nation’s highest offices.

What’s also clear is that they’ve broken through the dark menace of what Trump in his 2017 inaugural address called “American carnage.” Americans are tired of that carnage and being threatened, lied to and intimidated.

And the depth of that weariness can be seen in Collier County where Republicans were fed up with being bullied and battered by their own leadership, which seemed to have ridden off the rails of normal political dialogue and entered a delusional world of dictates, threats and insults.

Collier County is a little place. What happens here usually stays here.

But sometimes, just sometimes, political tremors very far down in small, obscure crevices can join with other tremors and rise high enough to cause earthquakes— and those earthquakes can change everything at the surface.

Liberty lives in light

Kelly Mason, fourth from left, challenges Jerry Rutherford (second from left) at the Aug. 21 School
Board meeting. (Image: CCPS)

Project 2025 remake of FEMA would hit communities hard after disasters

Southwest Florida would face fiscal blow after nature’s damage

*A victim of Hurricane Ian in Venice, Fla., hugs a federal officer in gratitude for his help as part of the national response after the storm in 2022. (Photo: CBP/ Glenn Fawcett)*

Aug. 1, 2024 by David Silverberg

Updated Aug. 2.

While the head of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has departed, the ideas his Project proposes for completely remaking the federal government remain and could be implemented if Donald Trump is elected president a second time.

These changes would directly affect Southwest Florida in the event of a disaster like a hurricane—and one may be on the way as this is written. Today, Aug. 1, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) declared a state of emergency in 54 of Florida’s 67 counties in anticipation of a storm coming from the Caribbean Sea.

Among Project 2025’s proposals are changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which would impose new and heavily burdensome costs on local governments and reduce federal support.

Changes at Project 2025

Project 2025 is a sweeping, 887-page tome of recommendations for presidential and legislative changes to be made under a conservative president, in this case, upon the election of Donald Trump. It is authored by the conservative, Washington, DC-based Heritage Foundation think-tank. The proposals were accompanied by a drive that included recruitment of personnel, training for those people and a 180-day Playbook for immediate implementation should there be a change of administrations.

As people become familiar with its contents, it is increasingly a target for Democrats and critics alarmed by its radical proposals.

Although Trump campaign operatives repeatedly called on the Heritage Foundation to stop promoting Project 2025 as part of the campaign, the Heritage Foundation did not do so, leading to a rift between the camps.

On Tuesday, July 30, Paul Dans, head of Project 2025 stepped down from his position under pressure from Trump and his campaign.

“Friends and patriots: to every thing there is a season. We completed what we set out to do, which was to create a unified conservative vision, bringing together over 110 leading organizations united behind the cause of deconstructing the administrative state,” Dans wrote in an email to Heritage and Project 2025 staff.

“This tool was built for any administration dedicated to conservative ideals to utilize. The work of the project was due to wrap with the nominating conventions of the political parties. Our work is presently winding down, and I planned later in August to leave Heritage. Electoral season is upon us, and I want to direct all my efforts to winning bigly,” Dans wrote.

Despite Dans’ departure, the work of Project 2025 is expected to continue, as confirmed by Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation.

“Project 2025 will continue our efforts to build a personnel apparatus for policymakers of all levels—federal, state, and local,” Roberts stated in an X posting.

While Trump has denied and dismissed Project 2025, much of it was written by former officials in his administration and it is endorsed by Sen. James David “JD” Vance (R-Ohio), his vice presidential running mate. Vance wrote the foreword to an upcoming book written by Roberts based on Project 2025.

Moreover, if Trump is elected, his army of loyalists, enablers and aspirants will no doubt use Project 2025 as their policy roadmap regardless of what he says—and therein lies its potential impact on Southwest Florida.

Targeting FEMA

If changes proposed by Project 2025 are made to FEMA, Southwest Florida cities and towns would incur a far heavier financial burden for disaster preparedness, response and recovery than at present.

The proposals would especially impact this region vulnerable to hurricanes, algal blooms, wildfires and other natural disasters. This is especially relevant in the midst of what is expected to be a very active hurricane season.

Under Project 2025’s proposals, Southwest Florida communities—and all American communities—would have to bear a far larger proportion of the expense of a disaster or meet deductibles, as in the private insurance market.

Lee County communities just went through the trauma and uncertainty of retaining a discount for flood insurance, which if lost would have been extremely costly to local homeowners. The Project 2025 proposals would be similarly costly to local governments, which would have to pass on the costs to residents in new taxes to provide the funding for recovery.

A quick primer on the current system

To fully understand the impact and nature of Project 2025’s proposals, it helps to be familiar with the existing FEMA system of disaster response and support for individuals and communities.

The current FEMA system is fundamentally based on the belief that the American government has a duty to assist its citizens and communities when disasters occur that are beyond their immediate ability to handle. While it regards this as an integral role for the federal government, it relies on states and localities to first respond to the degree they can before relying on federal help.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act is the law that defines and determines what officially constitutes a disaster. It also sets out the authorities and responsibilities of different federal agencies in responding to disasters.

The law was first passed by Congress as the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 and then substantially amended by then-Sen. Robert Stafford of Vermont in 1988. It has been amended further as definitions were refined and different forms of disaster added.

(Of relevance to Southwest Florida has been the effort, started under then-Rep. Francis Rooney in June 2019, to include harmful algal blooms as officially designated disasters. Rooney’s successor, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), although reintroducing the bill as the Combat Harmful Algal Blooms Act (HR 1008), has not pursued it with any effort during his time in office.)

When a disaster strikes, state and local officials determine if they need federal assistance. If they do, they put in a request for aid and the President (actually, FEMA and the Office of the President) approves the request and makes a disaster or emergency declaration. A major disaster declaration allows a wide variety of assistance, while an emergency declaration provides federal supplements for local efforts, for example to stave off a worse disaster or protect property and public health.

There are three types of federal assistance:

Individual Assistance helps individual survivors with immediate needs like shelter and repairs.

Public Assistance is a government-to-government program. It provides federal grants to state, local, tribal and territorial governments. It helps with a wide variety of activities like restoring public infrastructure and providing life-saving emergency protection.

Hazard Mitigation helps with the rebuilding of communities to be stronger, more resilient and prepared for future hazards.

Of great importance to Southwest Florida is federal assistance for debris removal, which has been a major expense for all communities hit by hurricanes.

After the immediate response, FEMA aids communities with their rebuilding and recovery. This is guided by the National Disaster Recovery Framework.

The Lee County experience

The impact and importance of federal support can be seen in Lee County in the aftermath of 2022’s Hurricane Ian.

The Lee County government put the estimated cost of Hurricane Ian in the county at $297.3 million. Over half of this was for debris removal, whose cost came to $156.3 million.

According to Lee County, FEMA approved $477.7 million in Individual Assistance. That included $299 million for repair and replacement assistance and $6 million in rental assistance for 23,704 households. Moreover, 775 households were approved for direct housing assistance.

When it came to Public Assistance, Lee County received $293.9 million in funding. This aided in repairing the Fort Myers Beach Water Reclamation Facility, lift stations for sewage flow, repairing the Lee County Sports Complex and Jet Blue Park, and the Bonita and Lover’s Key beaches.

Looking toward the future from 2023 when Lee County’s report was written, it was estimated that improving and rebuilding Lee County communities would cost $293.9 million, which would be covered under the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

These were substantial funds provided to Lee County by FEMA. They have made the rebuilding of communities like Fort Myers Beach possible at a much faster pace than would be otherwise possible.

Project 2025 would change that.

What Project 2025 would—or wouldn’t—do

The changes to FEMA are contained in the section of Project 2025 that covers homeland security, since FEMA is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

This section appears under the byline of Ken Cuccinelli.

Project 2025 observes that while FEMA is the lead agency for preparing and responding to disasters, “it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt.”

Project 2025 blames the Stafford Act for a shift in disaster response from the states and localities to the federal government and complains that FEMA is too “state-friendly.”

In particular, it takes aim at a “per capita indicator.” The indicator gives FEMA the authority to set a threshold below which states and localities are ineligible for public assistance, i.e., the level under which a community won’t get FEMA assistance if its damages are too small.

FEMA, argues Project 2025, sets the indicator so that most communities will get FEMA assistance.

What is more, it states, the indicator has “failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed.”

Project 2025’s solution is to make it tougher to get federal aid.

“FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin,” it states.

If the indicator can’t be raised there’s another option: “Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities.”

“In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 percent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters.”

In other words, states and localities should bear the greatest financial burden for disaster preparation, response, recovery and resilience and that’s where Project 2025 would put it.

For Southwest Florida, this would be…well, in a word…a disaster.

The impact

Under Project 2025 communities already reeling under the devastation of a disaster would be hit with far higher costs and financial burdens for response and recovery than at present. They could look to FEMA for assistance but that assistance would be much lower and more grudging than at present.

FEMA would go from “state-friendly” to “state-stingy.”

Imagine Lee County in the wake of Hurricane Ian under Project 2025 guidelines.

Lee County would have had to bear the cost for most of the $297.3 million in damages from the hurricane. It would have been a staggering burden; in fact, it could have driven the county into bankruptcy—or at the very least the recovery would be even slower and more painful than at present. People would suffer longer. As it is, Lee County’s recovery has been agonizingly slow for some people. Under Project 2025, it wouldn’t recover for decades.

The other Project 2025 alternative, having communities pay deductibles, would be equally burdensome. At a time when their communities were flattened by hurricanes or tornadoes and digging out, towns and cities would be ineligible for aid at the very moment they need it most unless they met arbitrary deductible thresholds.

Lastly, imagine a system in which “small” disasters get only 25 percent in federal support. Was Hurricane Ian a “small” disaster or a “truly catastrophic disaster?” Anyone on the ground knew it was truly catastrophic—but in the full spectrum of disasters handled by FEMA it might not be considered such and so would not have gotten the support for a full recovery. Every new disaster would leave devastated populations wondering: was this “a truly catastrophic disaster” that will get federal help?

The evolution of caring

In 1927 President Calvin Coolidge included this in his annual message to Congress:

“The Government is not the insurer of its citizens against the hazard of the elements. We shall always have flood and drought, heat and cold, earthquake and wind, lightning and tidal wave, which are all too constant in their afflictions. The Government does not undertake to reimburse its citizens for loss and damage incurred under such circumstances. It is chargeable, however, with the rebuilding of public works and the humanitarian duty of relieving its citizens from distress.”

Coolidge was writing in the midst of a truly horrendous Mississippi River flood that devastated the states along its banks and displaced millions of people.

Throughout that disaster, which lasted over months, he refused to visit the site of the floods, wouldn’t request additional appropriations from Congress, wouldn’t make any appeals for voluntary donations and for all intents and purposes ignored the whole event.

It’s a response unthinkable today. But he was reflecting the attitudes of the time. People were on their own, he was saying, and so were their towns, counties and states.

That attitude changed with the Great Depression and the New Deal.

The Great Depression was a natural disaster only in that evoked natural feelings of panic and fear. But it was a disaster that overwhelmed people and even their best individual efforts had virtually no effect.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt altered the national attitude. For the first time the federal government felt an obligation to aid its citizens in their times of need, when they couldn’t cope with a disaster with the tools at hand. (For a full history, see the author’s book, Masters of Disaster: The Political and Leadership Lessons of America’s Greatest Disasters, available on Amazon Kindle.)

More specifically, each natural disaster has led to greater federal involvement to help people crushed by overwhelming events.

In 1950, Congress passed the Federal Disaster Relief Act authorizing federal assistance if a governor requested help and the president approved by declaring a major disaster.

In 1968 the National Flood Insurance Act was signed into law to aid people afflicted with flooding (and which is another program that Project 2025 proposes ending. For more details see “Project 2025 would end federal flood insurance, devastate Southwest Florida and coastal communities.”)

In 1974, after tornadoes struck across 10 states resulting in six federal disaster declarations, Congress passed the Disaster Relief Act.

Then, in 1980, after Mount St. Helens erupted and blanketed parts of the West in volcanic ash, for the first time the federal government assumed 75 percent of the cost of the recovery.

The capstone was the 1988 passage of the Stafford Act, which has been updated since.

Commentary: Project 2025 makes Americans vulnerable again

Project 2025 is critical of FEMA from a banker’s perspective. It correctly points out that FEMA’s emergency fund sometimes gets low. In the Project’s view, that is because FEMA is overly generous to states and localities.

But when this last happened, in August 2023, it was because FEMA was handling multiple disasters including Hurricane Idalia—which especially hit Florida—and wildfires in Maui, Hawaii. As a result its funding had to be replenished by an emergency appropriation of tax dollars.

(It should also be noted that Southwest Florida’s congressman, Rep. Byron Donalds, has consistently voted against appropriations bills that would replenish FEMA funding.)

What the Project 2025 analysis neglects is that FEMA is not a bank. It does not operate a profit and loss balance sheet. It doesn’t charge interest.

FEMA’s mission is to “help people before, during and after disasters.” That means assisting them when they’re in need and usually at the worst times of their lives. It’s not a loan or a handout.

Federal disaster assistance is one of the greatest benefits of being an American citizen.

What’s more, it is what a citizen’s taxes buy. As has been said in these pages before, taxes are a two-way street. A citizen pays into the general pot but gets appropriate benefits as needed.

In this case people’s taxes buy them help when they need it as a result of a natural disaster.

There’s nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything wrong with replenishing FEMA’s emergency funds when there are so many disasters that those funds run low.

Lastly, as for FEMA failing to promote state and local preparedness and response, as Project 2025 charges, the Project’s authors might ask the city officials of Cape Coral, Bonita Springs, Fort Myers Beach and Lee County whether FEMA insists on local preparedness, readiness and resilient rebuilding.

Project 2025 wants to leave American citizens, states, territories, tribes, counties, cities and towns financially naked and vulnerable to natural disasters. It wants to go back to Calvin Coolidge’s cold indifference to Americans’ suffering and return to a time when there was no federal help of any kind.

Moreover, it wants to do this at a time when climate change is making disasters of all sorts more frequent, more intense, and more devastating—and there is no longer any reversing this, it is the new normal. The state of Florida may think it can eliminate climate change by banning mention of it in textbooks and official documents but that’s not the way reality works, as its current state of emergency demonstrates.

Project 2025 is correct in one assertion: FEMA is indeed “overtasked.” But far from gutting FEMA and its capacity to help Americans and their towns and cities, FEMA needs buttressing and support. It already has a big mission and that mission is only going to get bigger.

If Donald Trump is elected and Project 2025 implemented by his sycophants, enablers and loyalists, when it comes to disasters they won’t make America great again.

Instead, they’ll make it weaker, more vulnerable and more devastated— and they’ll do it in Southwest Florida just as much as they’ll do it everywhere else they can.

That is, unless the American people stop Project 2025 at the ballot box this November.

To subscribe to FEMA’s Daily Operations Briefing, click here. This free service provides a daily overview of American disasters, hazards and FEMA responses. (It’s especially informative during hurricane season.)

Liberty lives in light

Sleaze, slime and slander in Collier County: Accusations, falsehoods split Republicans as primary looms

*Supporters of Collier County Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier march this year in the Naples, Fla., July 4th parade. Blazier has been the target of disinformation from opponents. (Photo: Author)*

July 28, 2024 by David Silverberg

Updated July 30 with full image of CCREC posting.

As the days count down to the August 20 primary election in Collier County, Fla., the campaigning is getting uglier, nastier and more unforgiving.

In this overwhelmingly Republican county (139,305 Republicans, 52,342 Democrats and 66,915 others as of July 27) the Republican primary will serve as the general election for a number of important races.

As a result, the outcome is more unpredictable than usual in what is normally a quiet and sleepy tropical corner of the Sunshine State—and as the stakes rise, the discourse sinks.

In particular, there is a rift between many longstanding Republicans who say they are in the majority versus Make America Great Again (MAGA) Republicans on the official Collier County Republican Executive Committee (CCREC, henceforth referred to here as the REC).

The REC is dominated by Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III, the extremely conservative grocer and farmer, and chaired by John Meo, a Naples financial manager.

The dissenting Republicans are expressing themselves through a variety of means and organizations, most notably the Collier County Citizens Values Political Action Committee (CCCVPAC, henceforth referred to here as the PAC). (For previous coverage see “Collier County, Fla., Republican PAC breaks with Alfie Oakes and Party Exec Committee; cites ‘authoritarian stance,’ slams ‘angry, inexperienced individuals.’”)

The battle has become bitter, personal and in some cases, overtly fraudulent.

False flyers and fake texts

The Collier County Supervisor of Election race is a key contest. After all, as Josef Stalin once said: “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything”—so the battle is on to be the one who counts the votes.

The race pits current Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier against challengers Tim Guerrette and David Schaffel. (For a more complete discussion of the race, see: “This is what integrity looks like: Melissa Blazier for Supervisor of Elections.”)

All are Republicans. In particular, Blazier is a member of the Naples Republican Club, Republican Women of Southwest Florida Federated, and the Women’s Republican Club. Guerrette has been a Republican for over 30 years.

But that hasn’t stopped the REC, which backs Schaffel, from sending out a text messsage accusing Blazier of being a Democrat and Guerrette of being a RINO (Republican in name only).

*The REC-issued text message putting false labels on Supervisor of Elections candidates it opposes. (Image: CCREC).*

The false labeling story was covered by Dave Elias, political reporter for NBC2 News in Fort Myers in a July 18 report, “Collier County voters receive election text messages with false information.”

“Tens of thousands of Republican voters received confusing and fraudulent messages meant to dupe voters,” Elias reported.

In the report both Blazier and Guerrette denied being anything other than Republicans.

However, “The attacks don’t stop there,” Elias pointed out. “Another flier went out to voters, making it appear that the Republican Party endorsed Guerrette instead of Schaffel.”

When the PAC sent out its list of endorsements on June 27 and denounced REC-endorsed candidates as unqualified for the positions they were seeking, REC Chair John Meo sent out his own text message to Republicans on July 17.

In it he denounced the PAC and another conservative political action committee, Collier First PAC, which endorsed Guerrette in the Supervisor of Elections race. He also alleged that the dissident PACs were violating the law by making endorsements without REC approval.

“While these clear violations are under investigation by law enforcement and the Republican Party of Florida, I feel it is imperative to remind you that you should ONLY trust messages coming directly from the Collier County Republican Party,” he wrote.

“Unfortunately, these Never-Trump dark money groups are pushing candidates who have NOT been endorsed by the Republican Party,” he stated.

This message prompted a blistering response from Diane Van Parys, a Naples resident, president of Republican Women of Southwest Florida Federated and the immediate past president of the Florida Federation of Republican Women.

“Last time I checked, John, neither you nor the CCREC control who Republican’s vote for,” she wrote in an e-mail that was copied to 300 other local Republicans. “In the United States the ballot and the Democratic process of elections takes place. A primary is the process of vetting all the Republican Candidates and many of us are able to make a decision on who we choose as the best candidate(s) and vote accordingly without the CCREC’s assistance.

“The fact that you libeled yourself by labeling a Collier County Constitutional Officer /Supervisor of Elections a Democrat is reason enough to request you to resign your position as Chairman of the CCREC. You have proven once again that your lack of knowledge and blatant lies should not be tolerated by the CCREC any longer. Labeling another candidate a RINO who is a 30 year registered Republican is disgraceful.”

She made a particular point of contesting Meo’s point that the independent PACs had somehow broken the law.

“Chairman Meo, the fact that you are threatening fellow Republicans –‘We trust that law enforcement will bring the perpetrators to light and expose the frauds that have been posing as our party.’Exactly who do you think you are? You must be a liar, prove me wrong and produce the evidence of your filings on behalf of the CCREC with Law Enforcement.”

Parys also questioned the funding for the REC messages and the fact they were sent out during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, when many of the county’s top Republicans were away from Florida.

She pointed out that in neighboring Lee County, in contrast to Collier, the party executive committee was careful not to endorse candidates in contested intra-party primary elections, although other organizations were free to do so.

Meo’s allegation that “dark money” was being employed and that possible crimes were committed also opened up a whole other area for new allegations and investigation by law enforcement. Van Parys questioned the legality of REC’s spending money to promote its endorsed candidates against other Republicans legitimately seeking Party members’ approval. She also noted that while the REC was threatening the independent PACs it said nothing about Oakes’ Citizens Awake Now (CAN) PAC, which is backing the REC-endorsed candidates.

As of this writing there is less than a month to go until the primary. When it comes to the Collier County Republican Party, activities to watch are whether there will be new potential falsehoods, fraudulent propaganda, accusations, and whether law enforcement investigates possible illegal activity.

The sin of Pride?

The political bitterness has also infected the increasingly heated race for two seats on the Collier County School Board.

In this non-partisan race, incumbents Stephanie Lucarelli (District 2) and Erick Carter (District 4) are being challenged by Pamela Shanouda Cunningham and Tom Henning, both of whom have been endorsed by the REC.

Cunningham, 49, who is running against Lucarelli, 50, in District 2, is advocating traditional educational principles. “I am committed to moving CCPS [Collier County Public Schools] away from its progressive educational framework and implementing a traditional educational model,” she states on her campaign website.

An earlier version of the website stated that she was an “unapologetic conservative” and claimed that Collier County children’s futures are “being sold out to big government bureaucrats who want to indoctrinate, not educate; career politicians who want to teach them what to think, not how to think.” She wanted to put “parents in classrooms, not the liberal elite” and “restore greatness to the American classroom.”

In a recent campaign newsletter Cunningham targeted two Collier County parents who had received awards for their volunteer work from Naples Pride, a volunteer-based grassroots nonprofit organization supporting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and questioning community.

Megan Titcomb and Amy Perwein had posted a photo of themselves holding awards to their Facebook page.

*Megan Titcomb and Amy Perwein display their Naples Pride awards in the photo used by Pam Cunningham. (Image: WINK News)*

Cunningham used the photo in her campaign newsletter, stating “my opponent and her supporters on the radical left are fighting to fundamentally transform our schools into centers of progressive indoctrination, meanwhile allowing true education to wither.”

Both women were outraged and alarmed by the newsletter and reached out to local media.

“Naples Pride has no affiliation with Collier County public schools,” Titcomb told Naples Daily News reporter Ellessandra Taormino. “The event where the picture was taken was not a school event, and it most certainty had nothing to do with Pam’s opponent, Stephanie Lucarelli.”

“I do not post often on social media and rarely publicly, but I could not remain silent,” Perwien said. “I spoke out because I do not want any other parents to be put in this situation; I sincerely hope that Cunningham reconsiders her campaign tactics.”

Cunningham belatedly responded to the parents in an interview with WINK TV’s Jillian Haggerty.

Of the two women, she said: “One of them was at the Naples Pride Fest this year on stage making a speech specifically naming me and my platform and asking the people at the Pride Fest to get out to vote for School Board.”

She said the two weren’t just ordinary parents but were “left-wing activists and are active volunteers for my opponent’s campaign.” Cunningham said she was sent the photos by another party, whom she did not name.

Titcomb and Perwein told WINK TV that they had filed an incident report with the Collier County Sheriff’s Department.

Cunningham’s action sparked a furious backlash in the community as reflected in letters to the editor in the Naples Daily News.

“In political contests these days, many of us believe in the phrase, ‘When they go low, we go high,”’ wrote one county resident, Lisa Freund, in a letter. “Well, in this year’s school board election, incumbent Stephanie Lucarelli’s opponent Pam Cunningham has gone lower than low in attacking two friends of mine who are parents and community advocates for equality and education, all in the service of advancing her candidacy. Attacking parents who work with and for the children of CCPS is no way to run an election campaign.”

Analysis: Don’t trust and be sure to verify

As the campaigning clock ticks down to primary Election Day, it seems clear that MAGA REC Republicans are on the defensive and increasingly relying on outright falsehoods, innuendo, intimidation and insults to achieve their ends since a significant, perhaps majority, of county Republicans are rejecting them.

This was put very clearly by PAC Republicans when they issued their own endorsements on June 27 and stated: “While Collier County enjoys competent local governance, replacing experienced officials with angry, inexperienced individuals to address national issues could undermine our community’s standards.” They also rejected the REC’s “authoritarian stance”—i.e., its insistence that Republicans vote only for REC-backed candidates.

This is not the first pushback against REC dictates. In May 2023 School Board Chair Kelly Mason (formerly Lichter), whose election had been supported by Oakes and his CAN PAC, voted to install Leslie Ricciardelli as school superintendent despite Oakes’ opposition. He called her a “traitor” for her vote and sued the school board. This year, the Collier First PAC, whose registered agent is Lauren Maxwell, wife of Commissioner Kowal who was elected with Oakes’ endorsement and support, is supporting Guerrette for Supervisor despite the Oakes endorsement of Schaffel.

The REC is clearly basing its endorsements on loyalty to MAGA ideology rather than proven competence, experience or education. As Oakes put it on the Alfiespatriots.com website and in campaign flyers: “These are the only true patriots I trust to protect Collier County and get America back on track.”

Oakes’ pursuit of ideological loyalty overrides all other considerations and he most directly stated this at his Patriot Fest on March 19, 2022 when he told the assembled crowd: “I don’t want to hear about what IQ someone has or what level of education someone has,” when it came to candidate qualifications. “Common sense and some back is all we need right now.”

In the 2022 election cycle, ideologically loyal candidates were elected: Chris Hall on the Collier County Board of Commissioners in District 2, Dan Kowal in District 4 and Kelly Mason, Jerry Rutherford and Tim Moshier on the School Board.

The result has been a flurry of ideologically-driven legislation from the Board of Commissioners, introduction of religion into the deliberations of the School Board and a variety of outlandish and bizarre notions like introducing corporal punishment in the schools.

Now the REC is trying to further install inexperienced, ideologically-driven candidates in positions that could deeply disrupt the effective functioning of Collier County government, elections and schools.

The use of false allegations, innuendo, intimidation and insults appears to be a reflection of a growing desperation by the MAGA-dominated REC. It’s very unsophisticated campaigning that seems impulsive, emotional and even childish.

It also imitates tactics debuted by Republican nominee Donald Trump in the past.

However, while these were novel tactics when Trump used them in his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, this year traditional conservative Collier County Republicans appear to be rejecting them at the local level. This rejection may also reflect simple weariness with the constant barrage of lies, paranoia and authoritarianism that has come to characterize MAGAism.

Ultimately, primary voters will have to exercise rigorous skepticism, discernment and alertness in trying to determine the truth of the candidates, their statements, policies and endorsements. And of course, the real test of the contest between truth and falsehood, and the strength of MAGAs versus traditional Republicans, will be rendered at the ballot box on Aug. 20.

Liberty lives in light

The Kamala Effect: Can it flip Florida?

*Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband Doug Emhoff arrive on Air Force 2 in Cape Canaveral, Florida for a visit to NASA on Aug. 29, 2022. (Photo: NASA/Bill Ingalls)*

July 24, 2024 by David Silverberg

President Joe Biden’s announcement on Sunday, July 21, that he was withdrawing from the presidential race in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris sent a thrill through Democrats and all those who fear and oppose a potential dictatorship under Donald Trump.

Harris’ candidacy is especially important for Florida given the Amendment 4 fight for abortion rights, the state’s demographic trends, and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ ideological cultural clampdown.

Trump was on a roll in the wake of the July 13 failed assassination attempt and the bump from the Republican National Convention. Biden’s powers appeared to be failing and he seemed unable to carry through the campaign to a must-win victory. His endorsement of the younger, more vigorous Harris turned the trends on their heads.

But how will the new situation affect Florida politically? There’s little hard data so any analysis is necessarily speculative. Still, trends can be discerned and the focus put on key issues.

Amendment 4 impact

Harris seems poised to make a significant difference in the Amendment 4 fight, which cuts across party lines.

She has consistently been an outspoken advocate for women’s reproductive rights throughout her tenure as vice president. In the spring she held a “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour around the country. She especially engaged after Florida’s six-week abortion ban took effect on May 1.

That ban energized Democrats and launched the movement for a state constitutional amendment protecting a woman’s right to choose. Support for the amendment cuts across party lines and polling has shown its support in the realm of 69 percent, well above the 60 percent threshold needed for passage.

Harris at the top of the Democratic ticket has boosted pro-choice supporters across the country but it looks to have an especially electrifying effect in Florida.

Can Harris flip the state?

Despite DeSantis’ overwhelming 2022 electoral victory and election of a Republican super majority in the state legislature, Florida Democratic Party chair Nikki Fried has persistently insisted that Florida is flippable. The Harris nomination gives some credibility to that assertion.

“Vice President Harris keeps Florida in play,” Fried told reporters in a remote press conference. “We are running a former prosecutor against a convicted felon. No one is better prepared than Vice President Harris to prosecute the case against Donald Trump.”

Since the start of the campaign Trump has consistently polled eight to ten percentage points over Biden in the state. The change in the ticket is so new that credible new data isn’t publicly available yet.

For a long time, top national Democratic Party campaigners viewed Florida as a lost cause and Southwest Florida as especially hopeless. Starting in 2016 the region has been a backwater campaign stop, left to secondary surrogates like former President Bill Clinton who visited Immokalee and Fort Myers on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) who visited Fort Myers in 2020 on behalf of the Biden campaign.

On June 24 of this year, Florida Democrats suffered a new blow when Biden campaign Chair Jen O’Malley Dillon contradicted state party assertions and simply stated that Florida wasn’t a battleground state.

This revelation came in response to a question from host John Heilemann in a podcast interview on the channel Puck News. Heilemann asked Dillon if Florida was a battleground state. Dillon answered “no,” prompting Heilemann to joke that he was afraid Dillon was going to lie to the contrary.

*Jen O’Malley Dillon is interviewed by John Heilemann on Sept. 13, 2020 for his podcast. (Photo: John Heilemann).*

The exchange was characterized as a “gut punch” to Florida Democrats’ hopes and efforts. It also contradicted an April campaign memo from Biden campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodríguez.

“Make no mistake: Florida is not an easy state to win, but it is a winnable one for President Biden, especially given Trump’s weak, cash-strapped campaign, and serious vulnerabilities within his coalition,” she wrote then.

The entire political universe has turned upside down since those statements were made.

The question to be answered in the days ahead is whether or not the Harris candidacy, the efforts of Florida Democrats and a change in the public mood can make Florida more obviously winnable for Democrats.

One thing that hasn’t changed, though: on Monday, July 22, Harris announced that O’Malley will stay on as Chair of her campaign.

This means that Florida Democrats must prove that the head of the Harris campaign is wrong. The only way to do that is to win the state and do it without national help.

Culture wars

DeSantis has made his crusade against “woke” culture the centerpiece of his governorship and had hoped to ride it to the presidency this year.

That ambition fell flat, particularly in the face of Trump’s attacks on him and his own shortcomings.

But DeSantis has kept up the effort rhetorically and financially, as when he vetoed all $32 million in state support for the arts this year.

Harris has been a counter-crusader in Florida, inveighing against DeSantis’ worldview.

For example, in August 2023 Harris came to lambast new Florida state curricula teaching the benefits of slavery to the enslaved.

“Right here in Florida, they plan to teach people that enslaved people benefited from slavery,” she said incredulously during that visit. When DeSantis challenged her to debate the issue she responded, “There is no roundtable, no lecture, no invitation we will accept to debate an undeniable fact: There were no redeeming qualities of slavery.”

She took on the entire DeSantis revision of history, saying in July 2023 that he and other conservative politicians “want to replace history with lies.”

“We will not stop calling out and fighting back against extremist so-called leaders who try to prevent our children from learning our true and full history,” she said at the time.

She has also spoken out against book banning and gun violence. In March she traveled to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland to honor the victims of the 2018 shooting.

What to expect

As of this writing it is 104 days (three months and 12 days) to the election. A lot can happen in that time.

Right now Harris is on a roll. Her pending nomination has supercharged Democrats and the media coverage. If all goes as expected she will head into a triumphant convention on August 19 in Chicago and benefit from the traditional convention “bump.”

However, it’s worth remembering that whenever one side is trending, the other side will try to disrupt that trend, especially when the trend seems to be heading toward victory.

The Trump campaign must do everything it can to re-orient itself to running against Harris and it will use every kind of ammunition it can against her—and her husband, Doug Emhoff, and all the members of their extended families.

Rick Wilson, the Florida-based pundit, author, Lincoln Project co-founder, and veteran Republican operative put it well in a blog post, “Karma Comes Knocking for Trump.”

“First, the Trump campaign is still armed and dangerous,” he warned. “Don’t underestimate their cash, cruelty, and [the] determination of Trump to stay out of jail. There is no lower boundary. They can and will fight like the rabid, cornered animals they are.”

He warned that Harris and her campaign will make mistakes. “This is inevitable. She will say something wrong. She will get tired. She will forget a date, a name, or a fact. Campaigns are exhausting.”

As entranced as the media is with her now, they will turn, Wilson warned. “Harris jumped up so fast they naturally want to take her down a notch, and they will.”

Violence is very much a possibility, as illustrated by the attempted assassination of Trump on July 13. Reaching back further in time, it’s worth remembering the killing of another female political leader, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in Pakistan in 2007 when it appeared that she was on her way to electoral victory.

The Secret Service is on high alert but the threat not only remains, it has intensified.

The election battle will also intensify in Florida, playing on emotions that will get meaner and nastier as Election Day approaches. While DeSantis and Trump still dominate the state, they will be fighting to maintain their dominance. They have a war chest, so voters can expect to see plenty of advertising in all mediums attacking Harris, Democrats, Amendment 4 and the marijuana legalization initiative, Amendment 3.

Unless campaign director O’Malley and the national campaign decide that investing in Florida is worthwhile, the Democratic response is likely to be tepid due to funding constraints. Only a truly robust ground campaign can even make a dent in the Republican registration advantage.

Florida Democrats do have some advantages, though. If Harris’ appeal remains strong it may lift all other Democrats down the ballot. Her outspokenness on reproductive rights, healthcare and women’s rights may have a cross-party allure, bringing her independents, the uncommitted and non-Trump Republicans. Anger over the six-week abortion ban and the movement to pass Amendment 4 is already providing a powerful boost to Democratic prospects.

Another factor in Harris’ favor is the fact that Americans appear to have become accustomed to the idea of a female president. When Hillary Clinton ran in 2016 the idea of a woman president was new and for many, scary; particularly that woman. (Even so, she won the popular vote by 2 million votes.) Since then the idea seems to have lost much of its novelty as was shown by the relatively strong showing of former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley in the Republican primaries. Clearly, even many Republicans are now comfortable with the idea of a female president.

Harris has another advantage—and his name is Donald Trump. No poll has measured the weariness, the disgust, and revulsion of voters towards this man. Americans now know the corruption, criminality, and devastation another Trump presidency will bring. The data that’s been made public to date hasn’t measured how many Americans fear the threat he represents to their democracy and rights as individuals. The hatred, prejudice and rage he generates, his meanness, pettiness, and viciousness is unlikely to in any way abate in the days ahead; indeed, it is likely to intensify. Many voters will recoil.

Lastly, Harris is continuing Joe Biden’s fight for the soul of America but with an additional challenge. Like Joan of Arc, she has to do more than just lead; she has to inspire. She needs to elevate the dialogue, raise the level of devotion and then bring it home on Election Day in a clear, unambiguous and decisive victory that puts Trumpist authoritarianism to rest once and for all.

It’s a tall order. Harris has stated that she plans to “earn and win” the nomination of her party. That nomination seems assured. After that she’ll need to “earn and win” the presidency. She’ll certainly have help from every supportive American.

But earning and winning that victory won’t be easy and it’s on that victory that this state, the nation, the world and the arc of all future history depends.

*Then-candidate Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in 2020 shortly after he named her his vice presidential running mate. (Photo: Biden campaign)*

Liberty lives in light

Reducing the rancor while facing the threat

*Then-President Donald Trump basks in the flattery of his Cabinet in a meeting on June 12, 2017. (Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP)*

July 18, 2024 by David Silverberg

On Feb. 7 of this year, over 700 Southwest Floridians gathered in a Naples church for a conference called “Reduce the Rancor.” It brought together a wide spectrum of people who were sick of the extremism, divisiveness and toxicity of the local political dialogue.

On July 14, the nation had a similar epiphany after the near-assassination of former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pa.

In an address from the Oval Office, President Joe Biden said, “You know, the political rhetoric in this country has gotten very heated. It’s time to cool it down. And we all have a responsibility to do that.”

There’s now much discussion of reducing the rancor in politics nationwide.

But as much as the temperature may turn down, as much as the rhetoric may cool, Americans should not forget or ignore the very real dangers to the nation presented by Donald Trump, his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, and Project 2025.

As has been stated many times in these pages, this election is much more than the battle between two candidates: it’s a stark contest between democracy and dictatorship, freedom and tyranny.

What are the dangers from a Trump dictatorship that Americans are facing? Some are psychological. Others are political. Some are constitutional.

The implications need to be explored, no matter how calmly stated. This essay presents some observations but hardly covers the entire spectrum.

Nonetheless, it bears repeating that even if the rancor is turned down, the danger remains and will come to fruition if Donald Trump is elected.

Government by groveling

On June 12, 2017, President Donald Trump’s Cabinet secretaries went around the table in the Cabinet Room of the White House, extravagantly flattering and praising him.

It was an extraordinary display of obsequiousness and debasement from otherwise proud, intelligent, accomplished people. However, Trump’s priority wasn’t the execution of their duties or the priorities of the nation, it was inflation of his ego. The Cabinet, led by chief of staff Reince Priebus, delivered on that, at least for the moment.

On Tuesday night, July 16, at the Republican National Convention, it was the turn of Trump’s former rivals for the presidential nomination to grovel before him.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis once said of Trump, “If he’s running for personal retribution, that is not going to lead to what we need as a country. You got to be running for the American people and their issues, not about your own personal issues and that is a distinction between us.” Trump for his part had dubbed DeSantis “Ron DeSanctimonious.” In Milwaukee, DeSantis changed his criticism to adulation and said of Trump, “We cannot let him down, and we cannot let America down.”

Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who once called Trump “a con artist” and said “friends do not let friends vote for con artists,” and whom Trump for his part insulted as “Little Marco,” now praised Trump before the convention for having “inspired a movement” and “transformed” the Republican Party.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who also served as Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, once called Trump “unhinged” and “not qualified.” Trump in turn called her “a birdbrain.” Now, after a long fight, she stood before the delegates and said “Donald Trump has my strong endorsement, period.”

And Sen. James David “JD” Vance (R-Ohio), now named Trump’s running mate, who in the past called him “America’s Hitler,” “a cynical asshole,” “reprehensible,” “an idiot,” and “cultural heroin,” now says, “President Trump represents America’s last best hope to restore what if lost may never be found again.”

And so the litany went on, with once-proud politician after once-proud politician, bending the knee, promising subservience, and most of all, groveling before the king.

Time and again Trump has shown that receiving respect is not enough; he demands debasement, he insists on subservience, his subjects must grovel before him. He will extend his insistence on complete submission to all Americans if he comes to power electorally or otherwise.

Where once the power of presidents flowed upward from the consent of the people they governed, under a Trump dictatorship the power will flow downward from his will alone and it will be dictatorial, imperious, and unaccountable, like any king that Americans once rejected.

The threat to women

Donald Trump’s contempt for women has been made abundantly clear throughout the time he has been in the political spotlight.

The public got its first revelation with the infamous Access Hollywood statement in 2016 when he was recorded saying that as a TV star he could do anything: “You can do anything. Grab ‘em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Since then accusations of rape have emerged several times—including of an underage girl he allegedly tied to a bed—and he was held liable in court for the rape of writer E. Jean Carroll.

Trump’s contempt and disparagement of women is likely to spill into the policy realm in a second term.

He has claimed credit for the striking down of Roe v. Wade based on his judicial appointments to the Supreme Court. As he put it at the time: “My Supreme Court justices are great. They had the courage to end Roe v. Wade.”

Although he has opposed a nationwide abortion ban, his promises based on his word are worthless. If elected he will be under pressure from anti-choice forces to enact such a ban and his vice presidential pick is firmly anti-choice.

But there’s no reason to expect that the MAGA movement will stop at abortion. Having rolled back one right, there will always be the possibility that another right could be rolled back and that includes a woman’s right to vote.

With a Trump election the MAGA forces seeking to suppress women will be emboldened and energized and know that they have a friend in the White House. The temptation to enact further restrictions on women will be very strong and they will be seeking new frontiers for suppression.

At the very least, as long as Trump is in power the ability of women to meaningfully engage in public affairs—or even participate at all—will always be under threat.

The end of elections

Donald Trump refused to accept the accurately counted and confirmed results of the 2020 election. He attempted to falsify the results of the Electoral College vote. He attempted to stop the certification of the results by inciting a violent insurrection. He encouraged the lynching of his vice president when thwarted in his illegal demands. He attempted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. He disparaged and tried to discredit the entire system—the entire notion—of elections as the legitimate mechanism for expressing the people’s will.

The 2024 election could be the last if Trump is elected. He has already refused to commit to accepting the results of this year’s election, when directly asked about it in the June 27 debate.

He was unwilling to give up power when he lost in 2020 and he is likely to seek some means to end presidential elections altogether if he takes office. He will find a way to blow past the two-term limit for presidents (a term limit introduced by a Republican in 1947).

If he wins this year and accepts the notion of a regularly scheduled election in 2028, that one will truly be rigged. It will be the kind of election held by dictators like Saddam Hussein who won his 2002 election with 100 percent of the vote, or Vladimir Putin who won his fifth term in office this year with 88 percent of that vote (after his likely rival, Alexei Navalny, was disqualified and died in prison).

If elected this year, Donald Trump will almost undoubtedly try to find a way to become president for life. His cultic enablers will certainly be complicit.

Aftermath

With Project 2025 as a blueprint, there are innumerable specific actions that are likely to flow from a Trump victory.

To date, no one has better warned of them in a concise manner than the Lincoln Project, an organization of political and media professionals “dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of democracy.” On July 8, the Lincoln Project released a 4-minute, 16-second video called “Aftermath” that provided a preview of a Trump presidency and the measures he is likely to take. The video has its greatest impact when watched but its text is a powerful warning.

*The Lincoln Project video, “Aftermath.”*

November 5th, 2024.

Donald Trump defeats a divided and dispirited Democratic campaign.

On January 20th, 2025, Donald Trump is sworn in as the 47th president of the United States.

Unfortunately, he keeps his promises. Trump seizes control of a divided government, signing hundreds of executive orders implementing Project 2025. Trump replaces over 50,000 civil servants with hard-line MAGA loyalists.

The federal oath of office now requires declaring loyalty to the president, not the Constitution.

Protected by the Supreme Court’s grant of total immunity for official acts, Donald Trump orders the Department of Justice to arrest members of the January 6th Commission, current and former DOJ employees, and political opponents for treason, election interference, and conspiracy.

He declares it to be an official act.

Trump ends birthright citizenship by executive order and turns millions of American-born citizens into illegal aliens overnight.

Mass deportations begin. Hundreds of thousands, including legal US residents and American citizens, are imprisoned in newly-built camps.

Protests erupt.

Trump addresses the nation from the Oval Office, invoking the Insurrection Act and declaring the protestors a danger to American sovereignty.

He orders the National Guard to use deadly force to suppress the protests.

In the wake of the bloody violence, Trump declares nationwide martial law, awarding himself new powers under the freshly-signed American Sovereignty Protection Order, which defines protests of immigration policies as non-protected speech and a threat to national security.

Governors in New York, California, Illinois, and elsewhere declare their opposition, promising to refuse compliance in their states.

Trump orders their arrests.

Trump pardons every January 6th attacker, including those who assaulted the police, and in a White House ceremony, issues a new presidential medal honoring them.

Many are given jobs in his administration.

The Department of Education is renamed the Department of American Values, and mandates a nation-wide Christian nationalist curriculum for all schools receiving federal aid.

Trump, joined by speaker Mike Johnson and evangelical leaders, announces that the Department of Health and Human Services has reclassified Mifepristone, making it illegal to distribute or prescribe, as well as new HHS regulations that make IVF treatments impossible to legally administer.

Trump reverses one campaign promise by declaring a national abortion ban by executive order.

Challenges to his authority are rejected by the Supreme Court, which has seen new appointments from Trump after it was expanded to 12 justices.

He signs an executive order removing abortion records from HIPAA privacy regulation and announces a new federal data-sharing program so states can monitor women’s periods.

Thousands are detained while crossing state lines under suspicion of seeking an abortion.

Trump’s acting secretary of defense, a disgraced ex-general, fires over 400 generals and admirals, leaving the military leaderless.

Other Trump appointees purge the ranks of the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice.

By executive order, Trump withdraws the United States from NATO and ends Pentagon cooperation with Ukraine.

Russian tanks enter Kyiv. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is killed.

It is announced that Trump will run for a third term, claiming he was unfairly cheated in the 2020 election.

His Supreme Court ultimately agrees with this interpretation, paving the way for Trump’s 2028 reelection.

If you hear all this and believe it isn’t possible, then ask yourself, what did you believe was impossible just eight years ago?

This isn’t a fantasy.

It’s Trump’s plan, and he’s counting on you to believe it couldn’t happen.

The decision

In his first term Donald Trump was restrained by good, patriotic people committed to American freedom and the Constitution. He was bound by institutional checks and balances, by a truthful and skeptical media and by the law and the courts.

Since announcing his run for the presidency he has been tried and convicted of 34 felonies. He is accused of many more and may come to trial.

However, he has also bulldozed his way through all the restraints built into the Constitution, he has been granted near-total immunity from prosecution if elected president, he has successfully delayed or obstructed prosecutions and he has so consolidated his grip on his political party that he has turned it into an unthinking and obedient cult.

The elements for an extraordinarily oppressive and total dictatorship are in place. The enablers, from highly placed officials, to Supreme Court justices, to ground-level cultists to Project 2025 applicants, are primed and ready to implement it. They are blind to what they’d be giving up in freedom, liberty and equality.

This election represents the final barrier to total tyranny, regardless of who is at the top of the Democratic ticket. If the election is held as scheduled, if it is honestly counted and if the majority of Americans want to keep their freedom and democracy and express that desire through their votes, then the American experiment will live on and America will not only be great, it will move on to new greatness.

The rancor can be dialed down but the substance remains. In coming days, those who would defend democracy may be polite—but those who would end democracy should heed the words of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “Don’t mistake politeness for lack of strength.”

Liberty lives in light

Project 2025 would end federal flood insurance, devastate Southwest Florida and coastal communities

*Florida National Guardsmen evacuate flood victims in Arcadia, Fla., in the wake of Hurricane Ian on Oct. 3, 2022. (Photo: US Army/Spc. Samuel Herman)*

July 7, 2024 by David Silverberg

Project 2025, a blueprint for post-election decisionmaking in a second Donald Trump administration, is recommending termination of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

All of Southwest Florida and its residents rely extensively on NFIP for affordable insurance in the face of events like hurricanes, storm surge and flooding.

“The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program,” states Project 2025.

It’s a radical proposal that could have a devastating fiscal impact on Southwest Floridians.

A quick primer on Project 2025

Project 2025 is a sweeping, 887-page tome of recommendations for presidential and legislative changes to be made under a conservative president, in this case, upon the election of Donald Trump.

The Project is actually a continuation of an effort by the conservative, Washington, DC-based Heritage Foundation think-tank that began in 1981. Then, the Foundation published a book called Mandate for Leadership with conservative policy recommendations. These were largely adopted by President Ronald Reagan, who handed out the book at his first Cabinet meeting.

Since then, a Mandate has been published every four years.

Project 2025 is a continuation of the Mandate series, only broader, more comprehensive, more radical and entirely Trumpist. It has also expanded beyond just the book and policy recommendations to include recruitment of personnel, training for those people and a 180-day Playbook for immediate implementation should there be a change of administrations.

Because of the radical nature of its current recommendations and Trump’s avowed pursuit of retaliation, revenge and retribution, Project 2025 is getting much more attention than previous Mandates.

It is sweeping in that it includes a complete reorganization of the federal branch, installment of ideological loyalists in place of non-political civil servants and reorientation of government toward unchecked presidential rule.

A quick primer on the National Flood Insurance Program

In 1968 Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act, spurred by losses in Florida and Louisiana caused by Hurricane Betsy and its storm surge. The bill was signed by President Lyndon Johnson and led to establishment of the NFIP to protect Americans from the financial hardships of flooding.

The program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), takes three forms.

One is mapping flooding risk along rivers and coasts. By 2018, the fiftieth year of the program, NFIP had mapped all of the nation’s populated areas, or 1.1 million miles. Among other things, these maps help mortgage lenders determine flood insurance requirements.

A second goal is to mitigate risk by supporting local flood prevention and management measures. The program’s managers estimated this saves the country over $1.6 billion each year in flood losses.

The third pillar—and the one closest to everyday property owners in Southwest Florida and across the country—protects insurance policyholders from financial flood losses. In 2018, 5 million people held NFIP policies in 22,000 communities across the country.

Under NFIP, homeowners who meet its requirements can get flood insurance for most buildings and dwellings of all sorts, including condominiums, mobile homes on foundations, rental units and more. Policyholders are charged lower than market rates to make it affordable. Many commercial insurers don’t offer flood insurance and NFIP is the only option.

While homeowners are not required to purchase the insurance, some federally-backed mortgages require it if the building is in a Special Flood Hazard Area—places especially prone to flooding.

Given Florida’s susceptibility to storms, its flat terrain and its extensive coastline along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, NFIP is crucial to protecting Floridians and making life affordable.

In Southwest Florida, the City of Naples and Everglades City joined NFIP in 1970. Charlotte County joined in 1971. Collier County followed in 1979. Lee County joined in 1984 when it did its first flood insurance study and created maps to establish flood zones and determine elevations. Today, there are 51,103 NFIP policyholders in Lee County (statistics are unavailable for Collier and Charlotte counties).

Participation in the program “is crucial for coastal communities such as Lee County because most standard homeowner’s insurance policies do not cover flood damage, and without access to NFIP coverage, property owners would have to bear the full financial burden of flood-related losses or pay higher premiums from private insurers,” states the Lee County website.

Project 2025 versus NFIP

Project 2025 has no use for NFIP.

In its chapter on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it deals with FEMA and dismisses NFIP in a single paragraph on page 153:

“FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpayer-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program.”

Project 2025 has numerous authors and, as Edwin Feulner, founder of the Heritage Foundation, is proud to point out in an afterword, it draws on the expertise of 360 experts and 50 organizations. The recommendation to terminate NFIP is under the byline of Ken Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli has long been known as an ideological extremist. He ran for governor of Virginia in 2013, losing to Democrat Terry McAuliffe. He had a tempestuous tenure as Virginia’s attorney general from 2010 to 2014 where he denied climate change and fought research into it, even launching an investigation of a climate scientist whom he accused of fraud for his scientific conclusions. In this case, Cuccinelli was rebuffed by the Virginia Supreme Court.

He’s an anti-immigration hardliner who has advocated repeal of birthright citizenship. Under Trump he was appointed acting director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services directorate of DHS. However, his appointment was disputed and resulted in suspension of all his directives. At the same time he was appointed acting deputy secretary of DHS but this too was determined to be improper by the Government Accountability Office. He was the subject of whistleblower complaints for his decisions regarding handling DHS intelligence.

After Trump’s departure from office, Cuccinelli joined the Heritage Foundation as a visiting fellow and last year in Florida he launched the Never Back Down Political Action Committee on behalf of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential bid.

Analysis: A fiscal fiasco

Termination of NFIP would be as fiscally catastrophic for Southwest Florida as the worst, most destructive hurricane—in fact, much worse. It’s not enough that Florida is facing an insurance crisis anyway—this would dump yet another cascade of woe and expense on homeowners.

It would immediately impoverish existing homeowners who wouldn’t be able to afford commercial flood insurance—if companies even offered it. More than likely, most would have to leave the state for less expensive areas.

It would create two classes of Floridians: the uninsured and the ultra-rich. The uninsured would be wiped out every time there was a storm or flooding event because they would have no backstop or support. The ultra-rich, already paying high premiums for property insurance, would be the only ones able to afford what would be staggering flood premiums at commercial rates. Not even the merely wealthy would be able to keep up.

Flood insurance for Southwest Florida’s most flood-prone areas, its barrier islands like Gasparilla, Pine, Captiva and Sanibel, would be astronomical. Rates for property on larger islands like Estero and Marco would hardly be better.

This would come amidst the ravages of climate change, which is incontrovertibly causing more frequent and intense storms, greater storm surge, sea level rise, tidal inundation and more frequent flooding—and nowhere is this truer than in Florida, which is perhaps the most climatically vulnerable state in the union.

Lee County is already in a crisis because it failed to meet FEMA requirements for permitted rebuilding after Hurricane Ian and faced the loss of its discount under the Community Rating System. That’s a FEMA program providing discounts on flood insurance premiums to communities that exceed NFIP minimum requirements.

Without the discount, affected homeowners are looking at hikes of $300 to $500 in their insurance bills. Potential loss of the discount has caused distress, fear and anger among Lee County property owners and officials.

NOW IMAGINE THE COST IF THERE IS NO FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE AT ALL! THAT’S WHAT PROJECT 2025 IS PROPOSING.

This disaster wouldn’t just affect Southwest Florida: the end of NFIP would hit every community on every body of water that could flood: oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, even canals. Even places inland and as landlocked as South Dakota, Nebraska, Arizona and New Mexico would be affected.

In 2018 FEMA estimated that 13 million Americans lived in flood zones. However, that same year a study, “Estimates of present and future flood risk in the conterminous United States,” by seven scientists called the FEMA estimates too low. They put the number at 41 million. That has probably risen in the years since and is expected to rise even further in the years ahead.

The scientists also noted that “…It is evident that the absolute value of assets on the Floridian floodplain is also particularly high at $714 billion: Florida is thus a hotspot of flood exposure.”

Imagine over 40 million Americans stripped of access to affordable, government-backed flood insurance as Project 2025 envisions.

Project 2025 is scornful of NFIP’s “subsidies and bailouts” that “only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer.”

However, there’s another way of looking at this: NFIP policyholders are getting the benefit of the tax dollars that they paid to the US Treasury.

It always needs to be remembered that taxes aren’t a one-way street. The taxpayer puts money into the national treasury—but the taxpayer also gets benefits from the taxes he or she paid and those benefits take many different forms.

In this case, taxpayers living in flood zones get the benefit of their tax dollars in the form of subsidized federal flood insurance at lower than commercial rates. It isn’t a handout or a bailout; it’s a purchase made through taxes.

As for encouraging building in flood zones, as Lee County residents have discovered, FEMA is very strict and alert to building and construction in flood plains and communities participating in NFIP have to rigorously adhere to FEMA standards.

Rather than encouraging unregulated building, NFIP provides an incentive for communities and individuals to prepare for climate change, build resilience, strengthen homes and adhere to firm standards.

Commentary: The consequences of Project 2025

In the past, presidents and political parties didn’t rely out outside entities like Project 2025 for these kinds of sweeping proposals. Instead, they laid out their ideas for the entire electorate to see in the party platforms that they adopted through consensus and party input at their national political conventions.

In 2020 the Republican Party surrendered its political platform to Donald Trump, not bothering to adopt a set of proposals from Party members as it had in the past. Instead it stated that “the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda.” It adjourned without adopting a new platform “until the 2024 Republican National Convention.”

In the absence of a Party platform, there is Project 2025 to provide the world with a roadmap of Republican intentions.

As alarm has spread over the Project’s recommendations, Trump has disavowed any knowledge or awareness of it.

“I know nothing about Project 2025,” he posted on his Truth Social platform on July 5. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

However, as Edwin Feulner noted in his afterword to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation Mandates have had Trump’s attention since 2016. That one “earned significant attention from the Trump Administration, as Heritage had accumulated a backlog of conservative ideas that had been blocked by President Barack Obama and his team.”

Feulner continued: “Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, his Administration began to implement major parts of the 2016 Mandate. After his first year in office, the Administration had implemented 64 percent of its policy recommendations.”

Since it’s safe to say that Trump lies with every breath he takes, his protestations of ignorance of Project 2025 and its origins ring hollow. Furthermore, since his word is worthless, so is any pledge he makes not to implement Project 2025.

Even if Trump has not or will not read all 887 pages (hard to imagine him reading anything longer than an X posting!), his cultists will be looking to Project 2025 for guidance if he’s elected. In keeping with the Heritage plan, they’ll seek to implement its proposals in the first 180 days of his administration, many through executive action.

This article looks at just one small slice of Project 2025 that directly affects Southwest Florida. But if implemented as a whole, Project 2025 will be a disaster for all of America. Coupled with the total presidential immunity just granted by the Supreme Court, it will result in a radical reordering of the United States and American society. It’s a roadmap aimed at enabling a total dictatorship of unchecked power enforced by advanced technologies. Or as Winston Churchill put it when speaking of the Nazis, “all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

The world knows America is at an inflection point. The battle is on between democracy and dictatorship. Project 2025 makes clear what’s at stake—for every Southwest Floridian and every American citizen.

This is the first in an occasional series of articles examining the implications of Project 2025 for Southwest Florida and the nation.

Liberty lives in light

Alfie Oakes vs. Melissa Blazier: A dramatic debate and dueling details of disqualification

*Melissa Blazier (right) fills out her own paperwork to qualify as Collier County Supervisor of Elections in July 2023. (Photo: CCSoE)*

June 20, 2024 by David Silverberg

New details and strikingly different versions of events have emerged in the increasingly heated and vehement debate between Collier County Supervisor of Elections (SoE) Melissa Blazier and Republican Party state committeeman, farmer, grocer and political activist Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III.

The argument centers on the disqualification of Oakes from the Aug. 20 Republican Party ballot for state committeeman.

To briefly recap: all qualifying documents for candidates for the Aug. 20 primary—for all parties—were due by noon, Friday, June 14. Oakes’ documents were submitted after noon. Blazier sent Oakes a letter informing him he had not qualified for the ballot.

The details of the filing, disqualification and the reasons and motivations for it are at the center of their very different versions of events.

Facts: The Oakes account

According to a June 18 statement from Oakes on Republican state committeeman letterhead:

“I filed my notarized candidate oath and qualifying documents last week during the primary election qualifying period. These documents were accepted by Collier SOE staff, and confirmation of my successful qualification was given to multiple people on my team.

“Then, approximately ten minutes before the 12:00 PM filing deadline, I received a call from the SOE alleging that my qualifying documents did not meet proper standards. Despite this being blatantly untrue, I immediately hurried to the SOE office to sign the additional documents that they requested. All documents were accepted and processed by the SOE at 12:04 PM.”

Facts: The Blazier account

According to a June 18 press release issued by the Supervisor of Elections (SoE) office and quoted here verbatim:

“The law allows candidate qualifying documents to be provided to this office 14 days prior to the beginning of the qualifying period which was noon, June 10 through noon June 14 (prequalifying began May 27). Mr. Oakes chose to wait until after 11 a.m. on the last day of qualifying (the busiest time in this office during the qualifying period) to have a third party deliver his qualifying documents. No one in the Supervisor of Elections office confirmed to Mr. Oakes or any member of his team that he had successfully qualified as a candidate for State Committeeman at that time. Handing paperwork over to a staff member is not tantamount to being qualified.

“Immediately upon discovering multiple errors with his submitted qualification documents, my staff and I made several attempts to contact Mr. Oakes and his team beginning at 11:36 a.m., as documented in our call records. The calls were neither answered or returned until 11:51 a.m. when Mr. Oakes finally returned my call. Mr. Oakes then arrived to our office at 12:04 p.m., after the qualifying deadline, to submit the correct qualifying forms which were timestamped upon completion at 12:08 p.m.”

Following the closing of the qualification period, Blazier sent a two-sentence letter to Oakes stating: “Pursuant to Florida Statute 99.061 the candidate qualifying documents that were received in the Supervisor of Elections office were not properly filed. Therefore, you did not qualify for the Republican State Committeeman position.”

Motivations and disparagement

Oakes’ account did not stop at a factual recitation. He immediately made accusations, attacked Blazier personally and disparaged what he believed to be her motivations.

“The claim by Collier County Supervisor of elections Melissa Blazier that I failed to properly file my re-election paperwork for Republican State Committeeman is a flat out lie,” he stated. “This is the latest (but not the first) act of fraud by Melissa Blazier. The simple truth is that this is nothing more than a desperate attempt from Melissa Blazier to remove me from the ballot for one of her campaign’s mega-donors. It is downright despicable.”

He continued: “The fact is this: The qualifying documents I provided during the qualifying period more than met the standard laid out by the Florida Secretary of State as well as the Republican Party of Florida. Melissa Blazier is illegally using her position to circumvent the election process in favor of her campaign mega-donor, my opponent, Doug Rankin.

“Make no mistake: this is election interference at the highest level in Collier County. It is happening before our very eyes.”

Blazier was equally direct, if more formal: “The allegations Mr. Oakes is circulating which seek to place the blame on this office for his failure to qualify for Republican State Committeeman are unfounded and without merit.”

After her recitation of facts she stated: “Mr. Oakes, now irresponsibly, is blaming this office for his shortcomings and the shortcomings of his team in getting himself qualified in a proper and timely fashion. Mr. Oakes knew precisely what needed to be done and the timeframe to do it in, as exemplified by his timely and proper filing for this same position in 2020. The law and requirements have not changed since then.

“All decisions are objective. The role of this office in reviewing candidate qualifying documents is dictated by the law. Our role is ministerial. It is either right or wrong, timely or untimely.

“I have worked in this office for over 18 years in various capacities, including now as your Supervisor of Elections. This office has and will continue to have the highest ethical standards. Do not be fooled into believing that party rules take precedent over state statutes and state administrative rules. There is no fraud. There is no racketeering. All the actions taken by this office in this matter, and all matters, are justifiable and done in accordance with the law.”

Electoral considerations

Oakes, who has a long history of litigiousness, is now expected to sue the Supervisor of Elections office to get on the ballot. In the past he has sued the Lee County School Board, the Collier County School Board, and Collier County for decisions he disliked and this one is expected to be no exception.

“I intend to utilize every legal avenue available to stop this fraud and allow the voters’ voices to be heard in August,” he stated. “From top to bottom, this is the most important election in the history of our nation. We must fight back against the current corrupt administrative state that exists at every single level of government.

“We will continue our fight for our constitutional inalienable rights, and we will never back down!”

Blazier for her part was equally adamant: “As a constitutional officer, I am bound by the laws of the State of Florida. That is the ultimate responsibility in ensuring the integrity of elections. To bend to the outrageous and untrue statements being made about this matter would forever tarnish the reputation of this office and my position. The voters of Collier County expect that this office will uphold Florida’s elections laws and ensure the integrity of the electoral process, which is what my staff and I will continue to do.

“Do not be misled by Mr. Oakes’ attempt to cast aspersions on me and this office by deflecting. Mr. Oakes is ultimately responsible for his failure to properly qualify for placement of his name on the ballot.”

Analysis: Florida Rashomon

As of right now, Oakes is off the ballot and Blazier’s decision is final and supported by law.

If, as is probable, Oakes follows the example of his mentor and idol, convicted felon Donald Trump, he will proceed to court no matter how weak his case or how expensive the cost of litigation.

(It should also be noted that this is not the first time Oakes has evidenced inattentiveness to process and procedure. He has long been criticized by county Republicans for a lackadaisical approach to his committee responsibilities and missing numerous meetings, according to Party activists. At one point Party members considered writing to the state Party to call for his removal, but the letter never materialized. In Oakes’ case against the Lee County School District, it was revealed that the chief reason the District canceled his contract was because his company failed to file paperwork acknowledging that it followed any anti-COVID protocols.)

The situation is complicated by the fact that both parties are up for election to their respective positions.

Douglas Rankin, the attorney and former committeeman whom Oakes defeated four years ago, and who properly filed his paperwork and is on the ballot for the committee position, had no sympathy for Oakes.

“He is the one trying to get her to commit an election irregularity,” Rankin told Dave Elias, political reporter for NBC2 News. “The rules really do apply to everybody, including him. They had the good courtesy to move heaven and earth and call him to get his mouth down there, and do what he should have done days or weeks earlier,” he said.

Oakes’ other opponent, Frank Schwerin, was more forgiving: “My contention is that he submitted paperwork indicating a desire to run for a state committee position. It was notarized,” Schwerin told Elias. “The voters in Collier County should weigh in on who they want to represent them as the Republican Party of Florida. I’m running to give them a choice,” he said. (Note that Schwerin did not say the paperwork was proper or qualified.)

Blazier is facing her own challenges in the race for the Supervisor of Elections job.

Until Friday she was facing two opponents in the Aug. 20 Republican primary, Tim Guerrette, a former chief of the Collier County Sheriff’s Office, and David Schaffel, a former information technology technician, who is backed by Oakes.

All were Republicans, and since the primary could have been the deciding election it would have been “universal” or open to all Collier County voters.

However, Edward Gubala, a former firefighting captain and close ally of Guerrette, applied and qualified at the last minute as an independent write-in candidate, thus closing the primary to all but Republicans.

Candidate Tim Guerrette (left) and supporter Edward Gubala (right) in Guerrette campaign regalia. Gubala qualified as an independent write-in candidate for Supervisor of Elections, thus closing the primary to all but Republicans.

In his own statement on Oakes’ disqualification, Guerrette called for an independent investigation of the incident, without drawing conclusions.

For his part, prior to being disqualified, Oakes had scheduled a discussion of election integrity for June 27 at the Naples Hilton. It is advertised as featuring Dave Schaffel, his candidate for Supervisor of Elections, and Douglas Frank, a prominent 2020 election denier and voting fraud conspiracist, who has been called “The Johnny Appleseed of election fraud.”

General admission tickets are $50.

*The 2024 Collier County “I voted” sticker design by Alayna Gruber, a 7th grader at East Naples Middle School. (Art: CCSoE)*

Liberty lives in light

Collier County’s anti-choice resolution: What does it mean and will it make any difference?

*Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall moves the resolution to oppose Amendment 4. (Image: CCBC)*

June 17, 2024 by David Silverberg

Last Tuesday, June 11, Collier County, Fla., officially went on record opposing a woman’s right to choose abortion.

By a unanimous vote the five members of the Board of Commissioners voted to pass a resolution officially rejecting Amendment 4, a constitutional ballot initiative in Florida to guarantee a woman’s right to choose.

As a resolution the county measure does not have the force of law or impose penalties. However, it is an official expression of the county’s collective opinion.

How significant is this resolution both for voters in Collier County and in the efforts to either pass or defeat Amendment 4?

The context: Amendment 4

Titled “Limiting government interference with abortion,” the proposed Amendment 4 states: “Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”

When it appears on the ballot it will also note that: “This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

The amendment has been approved to appear on state ballots in the November election. If it passes by at least 60 percent of the voters, abortion will be legal in Florida. Currently, no abortion can be performed after six weeks of pregnancy.

The Collier County resolution

The county resolution, formally titled “A resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, in opposition to Amendment 4, a proposed constitutional amendment concerning abortion,” simply concludes that the Board of Commissioners “expresses its strong opposition to Amendment 4.”

It’s in the preceding paragraphs, known as the establishing clauses that start with “whereas,” that the resolution lays out its thinking and justifications. (The full, final, engrossed resolution can be read at the conclusion of this article.)

Rather than opinions, the resolution falsely asserts that Amendment 4 will put abortions in the hands of unqualified personnel, that it will end parental notification, and that it will allow late term abortions. The third paragraph states that Amendment 4 would establish a constitutional right to abortion.

The next paragraph starts with a word almost never used in resolutions or formal legislative documents: “I.”

“WHEREAS, I believe that the language of the proposed amendment is vague, deceptive, and overbroad, and would strike already enacted protections instituted by the State of Florida by broadening the definition of healthcare providers to those not medically licensed, eliminating parental consent for minors, and allowing the life of the unborn to be taken right up to the moment of birth… .”

It then goes on to state that “the Board believes that the passage of Amendment 4 would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Collier County and the State of Florida” and so it opposes it.

The debate and vote

The resolution was introduced by current Board chair, Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2). He is the “I believe” in the resolution.

The resolution was put on the county agenda with little to no fanfare or notice. Following public comments for and against it at the meeting the commissioners discussed its merits.

“I simply brought this forward because I believe this Amendment 4 is vague, it’s deceptive and it’s over broad at best,” Hall told the Board when they discussed the resolution. “There’s already a legislative process in place through our Florida legislators and it protects life already. And that’s the process we need to move and keep holy as representatives of the people.”

All the commissioners argued to some degree that they were seeking to “educate” voters with this resolution and were at pains to point out that people could vote any way they wished.

Commissioner Rick LoCastro (R-District 1) pointed out that the resolution was merely an opinion: “This resolution doesn’t change any laws. It merely puts us on record as to our moral compass. I personally do feel that many things at the polls are very ambiguous and very confusing,” he said.

He pointed out that during the discussion “I didn’t hear one person say the word ‘adoption,’ which is also an option for an unwanted pregnancy. He characterized himself as “pro-life,” said that was his “moral compass” and while supporting “a woman’s right to choose, my strong advice would be to choose adoption.”

Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-District 3) said that while he expected Amendment 4 to pass with over 60 percent, “I think this resolution is appropriate that it is our opinion that it is confusing, that it is overbroad, that it shouldn’t be part of the Constitution in the first place, that it is the Florida legislature that should be setting what the rules are dealing with abortion.”

“It’s a slippery slope when you start legislating a woman’s choice,” said Commissioner William McDaniel (R-District 4), meaning that choices have “life-long” consequences.

“My simple statement is: choose life in every opportunity that’s physically possible. Choose life,” he said.

Commissioner Dan Kowal (R-District 5) said that he didn’t know much about Amendment 4 initially but he learned that Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody had argued against it in the state Supreme Court and three female Supreme Court justices were confused by the language.

He asked how supporters of Amendment 4 could defend it if they couldn’t understand it.

The danger, he thought, was that “There are people out there who know how to manipulate our uneducated voters.” As he saw it: “This resolution is about educating everyone. Do your homework before you vote.”

Hall revealed that the deceptiveness he was so worried about was largely in the title and the words “limiting government interference,” which might be such an irresistible attraction to some voters that they would vote for it without reading the rest of the resolution.

As he put it: “And so in agreeing with all my colleagues to educate the voters, you can vote however you want to but I want you to be fully educated on what you’re voting on and I don’t want it to be deceptive. I don’t want you to look at it as ‘limit government control’ and think, ‘That’s awesome’ and then limit abortion and then get the results we’ve gotten. So with that I’m going to make a motion to join ourselves in solidarity and approve this resolution that says vote no on Amendment 4.”

Comment: Indoctrination versus education

The commissioners’ discussion of the resolution’s “education” is false and disingenuous.

If they truly wanted to educate voters, the resolution would have simply said: “Collier County encourages voters to study this and all other ballot initiatives carefully,” without taking a position for or against it.

But education was never the point of the resolution.

Nor was all the complaining about Amendment 4’s vagueness, deceptiveness or broadness relevant. These were the arguments that Moody put before the state Supreme Court in April.

In fact, the Supreme Court decided exactly the opposite from what the commissioners contend: the proposal met all the requirements for a constitutional amendment, it dealt with a single subject and its title and summary were sufficiently clear that any voter could understand it.

“In the end, the ballot title and summary fairly inform voters, in clear and unambiguous language, of the chief purpose of the amendment and they are not misleading. The ballot summary’s nearly verbatim recitation of the proposed amendment language is an ‘accurate, objective, and neutral summary of the proposed amendment,’” the justices wrote.

They continued: “Here, there is no lack of candor or accuracy: the ballot language plainly informs voters that the material legal effects of the proposed amendment will be that the government will be unable to enact laws that ‘prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict’ previability abortions or abortions necessary to protect the mother’s health. It is undeniable that those are the main and material legal effects of the proposed amendment.

“[W]e have also recognized ‘that voters may be presumed to have the ability to reason and draw logical conclusions’ from the information they are given.

“We thus presume that voters will have an understanding of the obviously broad sweep of this proposed amendment despite the fact that the ballot summary does not and cannot reveal its every possible ramification or collateral effect,” they stated.

Clearly the Florida Supreme Court has greater confidence in the intelligence, understanding and reasoning of Collier County voters than their Board of Commissioners.

So if the Amendment is actually clear and fairly presented, why pass this resolution?

One was Hall’s fear that the title “Limiting government interference” would prove too irresistible to some voters. However, he need not worry: not every Floridian instinctively salivates at the prospect of “limiting government,” so a stampede to approve the Amendment is unlikely on that basis.

Another obvious point of the resolution was both to put Collier County on the record opposing Amendment 4 and sway voters against it.

Because resolutions (as opposed to ordinances) are expressions of opinion rather than enforceable law, political observers tend to dismiss them as irrelevant. However, they do have some impact in expressing the collective opinion of a legislative body or jurisdiction.

But the Collier resolution doesn’t do this and it doesn’t do it in a most peculiar way: it’s that “I believe” in the third paragraph.

This resolution isn’t an expression of Collier County’s opinion as a whole; it clearly states that it is the expression of one person’s opinion and that one person is Commissioner Chris Hall.

One might have expected that “I believe” to be edited out of the final resolution, but it wasn’t.

So, although endorsed by all the commissioners, technically this resolution really expresses only Hall’s opinion, a commissioner who has openly stated that “there is no separation of church and state.”

Legislatively, it’s a poorly written and edited piece of work. There should never be an “I” in an expression of collective opinion. The “I believe” phrase dilutes its force as a legislative opinion.

Next, far from this resolution being a form of education for voters, it is an attempted form of indoctrination against a woman’s right to choose and a major purpose, of course, was to sway Collier County voters against Amendment 4.

Endorsing Hall’s opinion enabled commissioners to pander and placate their anti-choice constituents, whether the commissioners are truly anti-choice or not. This is especially important for those who are up for election this year: LoCastro, who is running against a write-in candidate; Saunders, who is facing four challengers; and William McDaniel, who faces one. Their fates will be decided in the August 20 Republican primary.

Will the resolution sway Collier County voters come November?

There is no polling or other reliable data to gauge its impact. Voters supporting Amendment 4 are not going to suddenly switch their votes because of this resolution. Voters opposed to abortion will vote against Amendment 4 anyway.

What it may do is possibly manipulate some “uneducated” voters against Amendment 4, although these are not the sort who pay attention to county resolutions. As Kowal put it: “There are people out there who know how to manipulate our uneducated voters”—although he was thinking of very different manipulators.

Most likely, the resolution will be used as a tool by anti-choice activists in the county in their campaign against the amendment. They will cite it to give weight to their anti-choice arguments. What election monitors and election law enforcers have to watch carefully is whether they illegally tell people this resolution requires people to vote against Amendment 4, which, as the commissioners noted, it does not.

This resolution now joins Collier County’s anti-public health and anti-federal ordinances, its termination of fluoridation in its water and all the other measures it has taken on its march backward into an imagined better time.

As for Amendment 4, the available polling indicates that statewide it has the 60 percent support it needs to pass and become part of the Florida Constitution. A Fox News poll released June 7 showed that 69 percent of voters support it and 66 percent of voters also support Amendment 3, legalizing recreational marijuana.

In November, if the election occurs as scheduled and the votes in Florida are accurately and legitimately counted, all indications are that Amendment 4 will be approved and Florida’s women will regain the right to choose—no matter what Collier County commissioners believe.

*The full, final, signed and engrossed version of the Collier County anti-Amendment 4 resolution.*

Liberty lives in light