Pendergrass: ‘Their goal is to drive people to the polls’
The Lee County Board of Commissioners meeting on Sept. 3, 2024. (Photo: Dan Becker)
Sept. 4, 2024 by David Silverberg
On Tuesday, Sept. 3, the Lee County Board of Commissioners voted 4 to 1 to pass a resolution condemning Amendment 4, a proposed amendment to the state constitution guaranteeing a woman’s right to choose abortion.
The sole dissent was by Commissioner Raymond Sandelli (R-District 3) who voted against the resolution.
The commissioners heard 2 hours and 20 minutes of public comment on the proposed resolution. This was in addition to two previous sessions of public comment on Aug. 6 and 20. Demonstrators on both sides of the issue protested outside the building prior to the meeting’s start.
“I haven’t seen that much engagement with constituents on this many issues,” said Commissioner Kevin Ruane (R-District 1).
Commissioner Ray Sandelli (R-District 3) (Image:LCBC)
Sandelli, who has announced his retirement at the end of this year, said that he was “taken aback” when the Board was asked to handle the issue.
“Personally, I am pro-life,” he said. “And when I cast my individual vote in November, I will do so accordingly. I trust you will honor my position as I honor yours. That said, I was taken aback when the Board was asked to get involved in this.
“But my constituency is all of Lee County, be it a yes vote or a no vote. Again, the final decision will come from all who will vote in November. We should carefully study the topic, help inform people, trust our own beliefs and vote accordingly as we see fit.
“So my feeling is, I would not adopt the resolution as it stands.”
In contrast, commissioners Mike Greenwell (R-District 5), Brian Hamman (R-District 4) and Ruane said they were voting against the resolution because they considered it “vague.”
“This resolution does not change anyone’s ability to vote,” said Commission Chair Greenwell, who introduced the resolution. “It simply would be a resolution saying, ‘Please read [the amendment]. Please look at it.’ I think the language is vague for a reason and I would not consider myself a leader if I didn’t stand up and read the resolution and say, ‘There’s something wrong here.’ And I think it’s important that we bring that up.’”
He added, “We’re a divided country. We should always help the unborn.”
Hamman said he had “compassion and love and respect for people we heard here today” but he agreed with Greenwell that the amendment’s language is “very misleading and I think voters need to be made aware that this is something that needs a second look.”
Ruane also criticized what he said was “vagueness in the wording.” He insisted the Board had a right to bring up the resolution and struck a defiant note against critics.
“I’ve heard a lot of emotional speakers and I’ve excused some emotion that if I don’t vote this particular way you’re going to vote me out of office. That’s your prerogative and every day I make a decision up here, that’s what I do,” he said. “And if this vote changes your mind so be it.”
But it was Commissioner Cecil Pendergrass who had a unique view of the whole pro-choice, Amendment 4 effort, which he considered to be a Democratic Party plot to drive voters to the polls.
Commissioner Cecil Pendergrass. (Photo: LCBC)
“We should talk about the big elephant in the room,” he said. The reason the whole issue of abortion was before the Board, he argued, was because the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had decided to challenge Florida’s six-week abortion ban and wanted to flip Florida Democratic.
“The DNC decided over a year ago since they had either DeSantis or another resident of Florida running for president, they’re going to take the state of Florida, they need to push the polls to guide people to vote this year,” he said. “So here’s what they used, they used an emotional issue like this, bring it forth, that’s what their neighbors have to have this discussion, which, at the end of the day, we don’t want to have this discussion with our neighbors but we have to now, because they decided to make this the issue to bring people to the polls.”
He said that the amendment had “very vague language they threw together,” knowing it would be challenged.
“Their goal is to drive people to the polls in November for the presidential election, which is unfortunate because they’re using women’s rights, they’re using as an issue for that reason,” he charged. He said he was also voting for the resolution condemning Amendment 4 because he considered it vague.
Commentary: The Pendergrass perspective
Somehow missing from Pendergrass’ perspective was the fact that women lost their right to choose in 2022 with the Dobbs decision; that this caused a spontaneous reaction among people who acutely felt that loss; that the movement to pass Amendment 4 might be a grassroots response to restore that lost right; that 993,387 Floridians signed the petition to put it on the ballot, 101,864 more than was required; that the state Supreme Court ruled the amendment’s language to be very clear and understandable to all voters; that there are plenty of factors propelling voters to the polls that don’t require some plot from the DNC; that no matter how uncomfortable and inconvenient it is for him and his neighbors, larger forces are driving this energetic discussion of reproductive rights and not some Democratic Party plot; and that it was anti-choice activists who first proposed and insisted upon this entirely unnecessary, divisive and inappropriate resolution, creating the controversy in Lee County, Fla., that he so deplores.
An uncharitable observer might call Pendergrass’ view of the situation “stupid.” A cruder observer might add an adjective starting with the letter “f.”
On one thing and one thing alone, he was right and on which everyone can agree: there was indeed a “big elephant” in the room.
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.
“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 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.)
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.
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.”
Pro-choice demonstrators rally in Naples, Fla., on May 3, 2022. (Photo: Author)
July 11, 2024 by Christina Diamond
Floridians are angry. We have been angry since the overturning of Roe v. Wade two years ago and more outraged since our Republican-controlled state legislature subsequently passed a 6-week abortion ban. Our anger has been channeled into action. We have worked hard to ensure that a constitutional amendment to allow abortions until viability will appear on the ballot in November as Amendment 4. However, merely passing this Amendment does not guarantee the reproductive choice Floridians hope for. In addition, we need state legislators who will support it rather than work to kill it.
Florida is under the national spotlight. Choice is on the ballot in November throughout the country. The overwhelming majority of Floridians and Americans think we should all have the freedom to make our own personal healthcare decisions without interference from politicians. Polls show that well over 60 percent of registered voters in the state support Amendment 4, the threshold required for it to pass.
Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis and his Republican super-majority in the state legislature are actively opposing the Amendment. No surprise. They are the ones who voted to pass the 6-week ban in the first place. In recent constitutional amendments that Florida voters passed, Florida’s elected Republican representatives ignored the voice of the people and passed laws or filed lawsuits that put obstacles in the path to implementing the voter-approved change. Unless we elect more pro-choice legislators this year, the Republican super-majority will undoubtedly weaken, stall, and hinder the full enforcement of Amendment 4.
Voters must understand that electing representatives to the Florida legislature who will carry out Amendment 4 is the final step in restoring access to this critical reproductive healthcare. Ruth’s List Florida is working to do just that. Our organization recruits, trains, and helps elect pro-choice women to the state legislature. Electing these women is key to ensuring that Amendment 4 is implemented and that the will of the voters is realized.
Ruth’s List is committed to electing thoughtful, forward-thinking pro-choice women who will roll up their sleeves and drive meaningful change as elected officials. With financial support and campaign training, Ruth’s List works to help qualified women win elected positions across the state at all levels of government- women who fight for what Floridians want- the opportunity to live their best lives without government interference in their most personal decisions.
On Amendment 4, Ruth’s List (ruthslistfl.org) is clearly in touch with the majority of voters in Florida. We strongly support Amendment 4 by working to ensure that more pro-choice women are elected to the state legislature so that the Amendment is fully enacted. As Floridians, we must pass Amendment 4 and we must elect the pro-choice women who will implement it. Lives depend on it. Failure is not an option. The opportunity to cast a vote to reverse the 6-week abortion ban is now.
Christina Diamond is chief executive officer of Ruth’s List Florida. She is president and owner of Diamond Strategies, a campaign consulting firm, based in St. Petersburg, Fla.
Ruth’s List was founded in 2008 by Alex Sink, who at the time served as Florida’s Chief Financial Officer. It is named for Ruth Bryan Owen, the first woman elected to Congress from the South, who took office in 1929.
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.
On July 4, 1776 the British colonies of North America declared their independence. By December that independence appeared to be at an end.
General George Washington had suffered a string of defeats. The revolutionary army had been driven out of New York and pushed back through New Jersey. The soldiers were discouraged and many of their enlistments were about to expire. They were cold, ill-fed and ill-equipped and the enemy seemed overwhelming. The fervor of colonists for independence was wavering. There was little prospect that the revolt would—or could—succeed.
The situation was so dire that one soldier, a writer whose pamphlet Common Sense had been instrumental in sparking the revolution, sat down and writing on a drumhead, penned an essay he titled “The Crisis.”
The cause that Thomas Paine championed, that of liberty and independence, ultimately went on to achieve victory and the United States of America was born.
But it was by no means certain that it would succeed. At every point during a grueling, eight year war, all could have been lost. It was only extraordinary dedication and commitment to the cause that allowed it to succeed.
Today, on the 248th anniversary of that Declaration of Independence, the cause that Thomas Paine and George Washington served is again in crisis.
In 1776 the threat was a monarch across the seas, backed by the resources of a vast empire. Today, the threat is a domestic demagogue, backed by a foreign dictator with extensive resources, aiming to re-establish an empire lost through its own failures.
In 1776 the threat was “establishment of an absolute Tyranny” by a foreign king. Today, the threat is of establishment of an absolute tyranny by a domestic demagogue who seeks the power of a king.
In 1776 the threat was that the people of the colonies had suffered “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object” that “evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” Today a long train of crimes, abuses and usurpations is again designing to reduce them under absolute despotism.
In 1776 the threat was that the people would be prevented from pursuing their “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Today the threat is that a would-be dictator will take away all the rights, liberties and freedoms won over the past 248 years and utterly crush those who seek them.
In 1776 the signers of the Declaration of Independence rejected the idea that a monarch held unlimited, absolute power and declared that “all men are created equal.” Today, a majority of justices on the Supreme Court of the United States have held that there is no equal justice under law and that one person, who holds the title President, is far more equal than all others and immune from punishment, checks or balances.
There are, of course, differences. A big one is that in 1776 the colonists weren’t sure what form of government would follow independence. Today, after 248 years of struggle and labor, America is a democracy.
The heart of hope
Democracy means many things but perhaps its greatest value is that it provides hope; hope that things can change, improve and adapt and that people can shape their government to meet their circumstances and needs.
But democracy doesn’t just provide hope in everyday lives.
The American system of unbroken elections held faithfully under its Constitution has also provided hope to those who seek political power through legitimate, constitutional means.
Throughout American history people pursuing elected office have been rejected by voters. But because they had the confidence that there would be new elections at regularly scheduled intervals and they had the internal fortitude to keep going, they dusted themselves off, learned from their mistakes, and made new efforts to win office. Democracy, the Constitution and elections gave them the confidence to try again.
It’s worth remembering that George Washington lost his first election for the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1755. Abraham Lincoln lost five elections before winning the presidency in 1860. In 1920 Franklin Roosevelt lost his bid for the vice presidency. Richard Nixon lost campaigns for president and senator. Closer in time George HW Bush lost two Senate bids. When starting out, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all lost their first bids for seats in the US House of Representatives.
In every case they trusted that the constitutional, democratic system of government gave them a chance to try again. It provided them with hope.
Only one candidate for high office in American history, Donald Trump, has ever responded to an electoral loss with denial, delusion, fraud, falsehoods, criminality, whining, interference, subversion, violent insurrection and ultimately, and arguably, treason.
Now he is seeking office again to replace the democracy of hope with a dictatorship of hopelessness.
That is certainly not the spirit of 1776.
The new crisis
As in 1776 when Paine sat down to write on his drumhead, patriotic lovers of democracy—of all parties—are in crisis.
Their confidence in their standard-bearer has been severely shaken. The courts are proving unable or unwilling to hold a criminal to account for his crimes. A blindly ideological Supreme Court has overturned America’s founding principle. The forces of despotism are energized, funded and seem overwhelming. Vast swaths of Americans seem susceptible to the hypnosis of cultic hallucinations. A would-be tyrant spews hatred, prejudice and rage while promising retribution, retaliation and revenge. The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of a passionate intensity. And the consequences of an electoral loss are apocalyptic and horrifying.
This would all be familiar to Thomas Paine.
But in their time, Paine and Washington refused to panic, desert or surrender. They soldiered on, marching into the face of uncertainty, committed to their ideals regardless of the odds.
This is what true patriots committed to democracy and the Constitution must do again.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who carries the standard for democracy. That decision is up to the candidate himself and the professionals, elected officials and the party faithful around him. There’s a vigorous debate under way.
But beyond the tactical considerations, the polls, the day-to-day campaign concerns and even the ultimate nominee, the question before the American people is very simple: One choice is democracy. The other is dictatorship. Regardless of the names, one outcome will protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. The other will crush, consume and eradicate democracy and all the rights so painfully won.
One candidate is hope. The other is despair.
Thomas Paine and George Washington made their choice. They stuck with it. It took a long time but in the end they won.
Today America doesn’t really have a choice. If the American democratic, constitutional public is to survive, if humanity’s last, best hope on earth is to live on, then we need to shoulder whatever serves as our musket and face forward to the enemy.
As Thomas Paine put it best:
“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”
Melissa Blazier, Collier County Supervisor of Elections, holding the election laws of Florida. (Photo: Author)
June 27, 2024 by David Silverberg
When I moved full-time to Collier County, Florida 11 years ago, I had very low political expectations.
After all, it was the deepest South, so I figured it was probably run by a bunch of good ol’ boys who arranged things for their own convenience. I expected elections to be rigged as a matter of course, just part of the culture.
But all that was before I met Jennifer Edwards, Collier County’s Supervisor of Elections. Over time I realized that this lively, energetic, outgoing woman really believed in the integrity of the election process, it wasn’t just a slogan for her. Her care and commitment infused the work of her office and staff. The statistics they produced were reliable and when elections rolled around the results could be trusted—even if I didn’t like the outcomes.
Now her legacy of electoral reliability and trustworthiness is under attack as is her deputy and protégé, Melissa Blazier, the current Supervisor of Elections.
Blazier is running this year to keep her position for another four years.
Whether Blazier can win another term in office will determine whether or not Collier County continues to have elections that are honest, accurate and lawful.
The path to perdition
Collier County is not unique in finding itself in the position of a contested election for a long-obscure and relatively overlooked county office that is suddenly in the spotlight.
In this it was carried along on currents that swept the entire nation.
In 2020 when he lost the presidency, Donald Trump alleged massive vote rigging and fraud. He began a chaotic campaign to discredit all voting results and the entire election system throughout the country. When all his court challenges failed he incited a violent insurrection to overturn the election itself.
Well after the election was decided and the results accepted by all parties, in September 2021 Oakes called for a recount based on a simple suspicion of machine-counted ballots that was then sweeping extreme election-denying circles. He offered $100,000 to Gov. Ron DeSantis’ campaign if the governor would sit down for two hours to hear Oakes’ argument that the 2020 election was fraudulent. DeSantis never took him up on the meeting.
Two years later the 2022 election results went unchallenged in Collier County but Oakes was still convinced that elections were amiss. In February 2023 he told The Paradise Progressive he would be challenging Edwards as Supervisor of Elections when her term was up in 2024.
Oakes believed the Supervisor’s office was corrupt even if Edwards herself was honest, and he wanted to do away with machine counts of ballots, which he didn’t trust but which are mandated by law.
Edwards announced her retirement in April 2023 and her place was taken by her deputy of 17 years, Melissa Blazier, who was duly appointed Election Supervisor by DeSantis.
Blazier, 46, is now up for election in her own right.
Election integrity and assaults on it
Americans have a clear and unambiguous example of attempted interference, fraud and manipulation of the electoral process.
On Jan. 2, 2020 then-President Donald Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. He alleged all sorts of fraud and criminality in the results that awarded the state to Joe Biden. After a lengthy, rambling tirade, he got to the real point of his phone call.
“All I want to do is this,” he said. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”
Over and over Raffensperger and the other Georgian officials in the room told Trump they had found no fraud, had recounted the ballots, certified the results and his wild accusations were false and delusional. They stuck to their data. They weren’t going to agree with any of his allegations or change the count. They also released a recording of the phone call (which even to this day provides for some shocking reading and listening).
In other words, honest election officials don’t find votes, they count them.
Today Trump is being prosecuted in Georgia for 13 charges of violating the state’s racketeering act, soliciting a public officer to violate his or her oath, conspiring to impersonate a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery in the first degree and conspiring to file false documents.
But the incident also provided a vivid example of how election interference really works; it’s not the grand conspiracy or the sweeping plot; it’s the phone call, the appeal, the threat, the request, even an outright bribe to change the results of an election.
In Collier County this year’s race for Supervisor of Elections revolves around the question of “election integrity.”
Given the example of Trump and the Georgians the question at the heart of the county race for Supervisor of Elections is this: If a rich, powerful, well-connected candidate calls the Supervisor of Elections and asks to bend the rules, will the Supervisor have the strength, the honesty and the integrity to say no?
Maybe the caller will want to find just enough votes to tip an election. Maybe the demand will be that the Supervisor bend the rules. Maybe the call will be a request to delay a certification.
The people running against Blazier are arguing that there’s something wrong with the Election Supervisor’s office and that she and the current election process somehow lack integrity.
But other than a sense of malaise and suspicion, they’re not specific about any problems.
Tim Guerrette
Timothy Guerrette (pronounced with a soft “g”), 57, a retired sheriff’s deputy with no prior election management experience calls himself “a proud patriot” for whom “God, family, and country come first!” He says that he will bring the county “safe, secure and ethical” elections. He argues that “no barriers should exist between the community and the Supervisor of Elections” and “Elections should never be held in the dark!” Under his leadership, he says, “the voting process in Collier County will ALWAYS be transparent to deter any concern of fraud and promote confidence.”
Of the candidates, to date Guerrette has raised the most money: $110,558 in direct contributions, and $26,374 in “in kind” contributions and has spent $80,399, according to his financial reports. He’s been actively campaigning, particularly among the law enforcement officers and first responders, where he’s best known and most familiar.
But is he being as honest and transparent as he insists he will make Collier County elections?
On his campaign Facebook page Guerrette is claiming support from various municipalities throughout the county. It’s a tactic that works for unsuspecting readers but it got some pushback from at least one person with personal knowledge of it.
When Guerrette claimed that “Everglades City stands with Tim Guerrette,” Michael McComas, a city councilmember elected in 2022 snapped back: “Who gave you the authority to speak for our City? You constantly claim that you were here for our last election which you know is untrue. How do I know this[?] I am a member of the City Council who was elected to office in that election and you were nowhere in sight during that process.”
Or consider this: the sudden presence of what is known as a “ghost” candidate.
When the candidate qualifying period ended on June 14, there was suddenly an independent write-in candidate in the Elections Supervisor race: Edward Gubala, a former firefighting captain and close ally of Guerrette.
Gubala had not previously campaigned for the office, spent any money or displayed an interest in filling the position. His whole reason for qualifying was to close the primary election to non-Republicans to benefit Guerrette.
Under Florida law, once a candidate from another party enters a primary that primary becomes closed to all but registered voters of that party. So in a stroke, Guerrette disenfranchised 119,115 independent and Democratic Collier County voters, 46 percent of the total, from voting in an election that affected them all—and this from a man who claims he wants to bring “ethical” and “transparent” elections that are never “held in the dark!”
Nor was there any doubt that Gubala was ghosting for Guerrette. He has no website or campaign material. He refused to make himself available for media interviews. He even proudly posed in Guerrette regalia at a Guerrette campaign booth.
Edward Gubala in Tim Guerrette campaign regalia.
As a campaign move, ghosting is legal under current procedures—but it’s also deceptive, restrictive and unfair. Moreover, this one is blatantly obvious. Guerrette and Gubala didn’t even bother to cover their tracks.
Given these factors, voters have to wonder: if Guerrette became Supervisor of Elections and a rich, powerful, well-connected person called him and said, “Tim, we just need to find another 50 votes to make this election come out our way,” how would Guerrette respond?
But it wouldn’t even have to be someone rich, powerful and well connected. Remember that the Supervisor of Elections oversees elections for fire districts, law enforcement and tax-related matters.
What if a fire captain, old friend and campaign donor called Guerrette and said, “Tim, we just need to find another 100 votes to up this millage rate so we can get some cash into this fire district. I know the voters don’t want their taxes to rise, but do you think you could help us out?”
That’s the kind of temptation and blandishment a Supervisor of Elections faces—and make no mistake, conversations like that do take place.
Dave Schaffel
David Schaffel, 63, is a former information technology technician, entrepreneur and consultant, who has lived in Southwest Florida for the past five years. He has no prior experience, either professional or volunteer, in election management or administration.
Schaffel is running on the same malaise and suspicion platform as Guerrette.
“Was our presidential election stolen?” states the opening line in his campaign video while dark and menacing music plays in the background. “American voters deserve to know the truth. The machines: can they be trusted? Mail-in ballots: were they all really legitimate? Joe Biden: did he deserve to be President? All across the country, moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas and patriots like you are wondering: will we never have a free and fair election again?”
Schaffel calls himself “a rock-solid conservative and America First patriot.” To date he’s raised $43,027 in direct contributions, $1,004 in “in-kind” contributions and spent $31,369, according to his financial reports.
Schaffel is backed by Alfie Oakes.
Schaffel promises to “rigorously monitor the accuracy of voter rolls and introduce new proven technological advances to identify fraud” and claims “my Information Technology career gives me unique skills to mitigate risk, provide real transparency, and restore voter confidence.” It’s unclear exactly what new technologies and skills he would apply to a process that is rigorously regulated by law. His questioning echoes past Trumpist mistrust of machine counts and mail-in voting.
While Schaffel focuses his attention on broad suspicions of procedures based on the 2020 national election results, it’s hard not to imagine election integrity challenges that are closer to home.
For example, how would Schaffel react if he was Election Supervisor and a locally prominent, well-connected businessman who had funded Schaffel’s campaign and promoted his candidacy called and asked: “Dave, I filed my candidacy papers a little after the deadline and some of the spots were left blank. Do you think you could cut me some slack and maybe fill in the blanks and backdate it to before the deadline? No one needs to know. Thanks.”
Or if a prominent state politician called and asked, “Dave, I could use a little help in Collier County. All I need to do is find 200 votes and we’re in the clear. There’s a lot at stake. Can you go in there and do that? I’ll make it worth your while.”
Or, perhaps most insidious of all, if someone called and said: “Dave, we need to get another rock-solid, America First patriot on the Republican Executive Committee and all we need are 27 more votes to do it. I’m sure they’re in your database if you look.”
The voters of Collier County would always be left to wonder: will we never have a free and fair election again?
Commentary: Why I support Melissa Blazier
Interestingly, despite all their suspicions and distrust of the current officeholder, when they were at the podium of the Collier County Board of Commissioners on April 23 to discuss an election resolution (which failed), and could have leveled accusations, both Guerrette and Schaffel actually praised Blazier’s oversight of the office.
Guerrette lauded Collier County and its current election staff for their dedication to “secure, ethical elections in Collier County.”
While Schaffel argued for less use of election technology, he admitted, “Yes, I think the way elections are run in Collier County, they’re run smoothly” and the staff “are doing their jobs in that office. They do a great job of running the election according to statute. And I want to make it absolutely clear that that is the case.”
So what’s the problem?
In light of the current campaigns and candidates it’s clear that Blazier is the best choice for Collier County.
It’s not just that she just successfully managed an election decided by a mere 22 votes for the City of Naples without any flaw or blemish, nor that she has over 18 years of experience in the field of election management, nor that she has more than ample certifications and testaments to her expertise, nor that she knows Florida election law thoroughly and completely, nor that she was taught by Jennifer Edwards, the best in the business.
The most compelling reason why Blazier should remain Collier County Supervisor of Elections is that shehas actually demonstrated election integrity on the front lines when it counts.
The others talk the talk but she actually walks the walk.
She qualified Edward Gubala despite the fact that it hurt her own bid and knew it was a sham candidacy—because she adhered to the law.
But the most important example of her election integrity came on June 14 when Alfie Oakes failed to turn in his candidacy qualifying papers on time and in full. Blazier adhered to the law and disqualified him—regardless of his standing in the community and his denials, protests, insults and personal allegations against her.
That’s what election integrity looks like.
If election integrity is the main issue in this election then there’s no contest. The challengers might as well fold up their tents and slink home.
Of course, they’re not going to do that. This battle will be fought out until the bitter end, which looks like it will take place on August 20, primary election day.
In the past, in normal times, election administration was something unquestioned, a sort of distant hum in the background, like air conditioning, part of the overall environment, functioning quietly and unobtrusively.
That’s no longer the case. Election integrity is not to be taken for granted. It’s precious. It’s threatened.
But every voter in Collier County should know election integrity when it stands before them—and in this place, at this time, Melissa Blazier is what integrity looks like.
The election laws of Florida, held by Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier. (Photo: Author, June 2023)
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.
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.
The motto on the West Pediment above the entrance to the US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
June 3, 2024 by David Silverberg
On March 5, 1770 eight British soldiers opened fire on a threatening mob in Boston in what was then the Massachusetts Colony. Three people in the crowd were killed instantly, eight were wounded and two died later.
The incident is known in American history as the Boston Massacre.
It was an important event in America’s march toward revolution. But almost as important as the incident itself was its aftermath, when American colonists, intending to demonstrate to the world that they were capable of administering impartial justice in their courts, put the British soldiers on trial.
The man who stepped forward to defend the soldiers was John Adams, a prominent lawyer, patriot and no lackey of the king. But Adams fully understood that America, to be credible as a self-governing entity, had to show that whatever the political passions of the moment, law had to prevail over all.
Adams capably defended the soldiers. Six were acquitted; two were convicted of manslaughter and given reduced sentences of having their thumbs branded. The commanding captain, Thomas Preston, was tried separately and acquitted since he had not given an order to fire.
Adams faced intense criticism for his willingness to defend the soldiers but he understood the principle he was defending and its importance to America.
“The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough,” he wrote on its third anniversary. “It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country.”
The Boston Massacre was an important step in America’s march to independence; but the Adams defense was almost as critical in laying the cornerstone for a nation and a new society founded on the principle of the rule of law.
So important is that principle that it is engraved on the pediment above the entrance to the US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC: “Equal justice under law.”
Law and its impartial administration is both the roof protecting the United States from above and the absolute foundational bedrock sustaining it below, enabling a functional, rational, democratic society.
Now law itself—and everything that John Adams and the founding patriots worked to achieve—is under attack because of a verdict in a court case in New York that found former President Donald Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.
During the trial Trump lambasted and insulted the judge, the judge’s family, the prosecutor and the court system itself for a variety of what he considered sins. He, his attorneys, and his witnesses dripped with contempt for the whole proceeding and those conducting it. But when it was over and he had resoundingly lost and been found guilty, he attacked the trial as “rigged.”
Trump has always attacked anything that hasn’t gone his way as “rigged” and illegitimate—like elections. There is no surprise there.
The Florida enablers
But it’s not just Trump trying to bring down the very notion of law and justice. An army of sycophants, serfs and supporters are taking up his chorus and are seeking to discredit, overturn and destroy the rule of law—and Florida elected officials, including those from Southwest Florida, are in the front ranks.
Last Friday, May 31, eight United States Republican senators issued a statement.
The senators pledged not to vote for any increase to domestic appropriations or spending bills that “funds partisan lawfare;” they will not vote to confirm any political or judicial appointees; nor will they allow any “expedited consideration and passage of Democrat legislation or authorities that are not directly relevant to the safety of the American people.”
The reason for this stubborn refusal to do the nation’s business? As they put it: “The White House has made a mockery of the rule of law and fundamentally altered our politics in un-American ways.”
Included among the eight were both of Florida’s senators: Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.).
This is richly ironic on a number of levels, most prominently because they are taking these steps precisely because President Joe Biden and the US justice system are defending the rule of law and the nation’s politics from un-American crimes by Trump and his minions.
It’s also ironic that what these senators term “lawfare,” a favorite term of Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) cultists, is the simple administration of justice. This supposed “lawfare” is applied to just one man—Trump.
(These protestations are also ironic coming from Rubio, who was so humiliatingly savaged by Trump in the past.)
The statement is a transparent and hypocritical attempt by these politicians to curry favor with the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and the MAGA base. But it’s also an expression of the weird, circus-mirror world of Trump, where the application of law is “mockery” and an effort to enforce the rules and punish criminality is “un-American.”
The same impulses and hypocrisies appear to have driven Southwest Florida’s congressmen to similarly denounce the New York verdict.
Upon the announcement of the verdict Rep. Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) immediately stated on X: “A disgrace to our judicial system and constitutional protections of equal justice for all. Americans see right through the Democrats’ scheme. This is nothing but election interference. President Trump will get justice on appeal.”
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.), usually the most sober and moderate Southwest Florida representative, similarly fell into line.
“The case against former President Trump is an obvious and blatant travesty of justice and a political witch hunt,” he wrote on X. “This is a direct threat to our democracy. This case should never have seen the light of day.”
In a lengthier statement he denounced the trial as “a tactic commonly used by dictators against their political adversaries” and accused the Biden administration and New York prosecutors of “focusing on bringing down a former president and GOP candidate for president. It is clear that this political sham of a trail [sic] has been centered on destroying a candidate rather than fighting actual crime.”
But of Southwest Florida’s representatives, none was more voluble—or extreme—than Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.). He’s been sending out a torrent of propaganda on X and speaking on every media platform that will host him to firmly establish himself as a leading Trumper. In Trump’s vice presidential replay of his television show “The Apprentice,” Donalds clearly hopes that he’s still a candidate so he’s been trying to firmly establish his unthinking and unblinking loyalty to the now-convicted felon.
“What happened in NY is disaster verdict by a crooked judge and a crooked prosecution. Donald Trump is innocent. To hell with what the jury said,” Donalds stated on X immediately after the verdict.
He followed up in a later post: “What happened in NY is a TRAVESTY. Biden’s FAILED as president & rogue prosecutors are now persecuting his chief political opponent. This is not about Republican or Democrat. This is about the political weaponization of our courts, our future as a nation & the American people. America, this is what a political prosecution looks like. Remember in November!”
“You CANNOT respect this legal process when it was rigged from the jump,” he raged the day after the verdict. “REMEMBER: They could not even identify the underlying crime. This legal process was not fair to President Trump & did not protect his constitutional rights.”
Donalds’ denunciations were particularly interesting given his direct attacks on the American justice system: statements like, “To hell with what the jury said” or “You CANNOT respect this legal process” or his charge that the trial “did not protect his constitutional rights,” when Trump could have testified in his own defense and declined to do so.
But all this is especially ironic given Donalds’ reaction to the Trump mob’s invasion of the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when Donalds was in the building.
“We are a nation of laws that have governed this exceptional Constitutional Republic for more than two centuries, and no amount of anger should ever compromise that,” he wrote then. “Our party has always been a party that respects our brave law enforcement, the Rule of Law and the institutions that make America the greatest country to ever exist.”
Apparently three years later those truths don’t apply when it comes to Donald Trump—at least as far as Donalds is concerned.
Analysis: Past and future
This is not the first time in recorded history that a prominent politician has been charged with crimes he disdained and had his followers argue he is above the law.
In 49 BCE Julius Caesar was charged by the Senate with violating Roman law and ordered to return to Rome alone to face charges. However, he felt that his victories and his “dignitas,” his sense of self-worth, put him above the law.
Instead of obeying, he crossed the Rubicon River with his legions and marched south, captured the city and ultimately made himself dictator for life. At that point the only way he could be deposed was by death and he was assassinated in 44 BCE.
It was an example—and a warning—of where societies go when the rule of law is usurped.
But last week’s Trump trial, the verdict and the reverberations can be put into a much larger context.
Why does a world that seemed so stable, so invulnerable and so established now seem in such a deadly and uncertain flux?
The world being attacked is the one that emerged victorious from the defeat of Fascism in 1945 and the fall of Communism in 1991. That world was a rule-based, American-led, democratic, egalitarian, inclusive global order and culture protected by the military might and power of the United States.
But any order has its malcontents. Three individuals in particular led an assault to overthrow this global culture and the Pax Americana.
Osama Bin Laden attacked it with terror and tried to replace it with a Muslim theocracy. Vladimir Putin used the forces of the Russian Republic to try to topple American dominance and re-establish the Soviet Union. And Donald Trump tried to tear down the US Constitution, the US Congress, a US election and overthrow American democracy to assert his absolute dominance.
Today Bin Laden is dead and his movement shattered. Putin is bogged down in Ukraine and the outcome of his reconquest is in doubt. And Trump was stopped by the institutions emplaced to prevent a dictatorship, has been tried in accordance with the American judicial system and has been declared a felon by a jury of his peers.
All the politicians—whether in Southwest Florida or not—and enablers, sycophants and coconspirators disparaging the American system of justice, arguing that this man should have complete immunity from any kind of restraint, are trying to throw off the equality of all people before the law and are picking away at the bedrock foundations of the American edifice.
They know better but they do it nonetheless for petty, short-term gain.
What is worse, they seem to have no understanding of what will follow if they succeed in toppling the justice system they so hate. As noted before, the rule of law is like a sturdy building that protects its occupants from above and below. If it comes crashing down there will be nothing but rubble; no protection from any winds that blow or storms that follow.
What is more, these politicians will be every bit as vulnerable as everyone else—indeed more so. They will achieve equality but an equality of vulnerability amidst a hurricane of chaos. If they succeed in putting Donald Trump in power as a dictator, as they are ultimately trying, they will be even more subject to his whims, his rages and his retribution—and he always lashes out first at those closest to him.
President Joe Biden put it best in remarks he made the day after the verdict.
“The American principal that no one is above the law was reaffirmed. Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself,” he said. “And it’s reckless, dangerous, irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict. Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years. It is a cornerstone of America, our justice system. The justice system should be respected. We should never allow anyone to tear it down. It is as simple as that. That is America. That is who we are. That is who we will always be, God willing.”
A lone American flag flies over a devastated Fort Myers Beach in the days after Hurricane Ian. (Photo: U.S. Air National Guard /Jesse Hanson)
May 29, 2024 by David Silverberg
As has been well publicized by now, this year’s hurricane season, which officially begins Saturday, June 1, is predicted to be an especially active one.
There are already reminders in various media for storm preparation: buy batteries, flashlights and water, make a plan and know your evacuation zone, among other measures.
But it also makes sense to plan to vote despite any hurricanes that hit—because this year there’s so much at stake and every vote counts, whether in primary or general elections.
What’s more, in Florida there’s an extremely important primary election on Aug. 20—the date when the hurricane season traditionally kicks into high gear.
“Now, storms can get going before Aug. 20, but this is typically about when they start,” Philip Klotzbach, a famous hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University told the Christian Science Monitor in 2011.
This primary will be a “closed” primary, meaning that only registered members of a particular political party can vote for the party’s candidates. But there will also be important “universal” races at stake, where all voters can make a choice and some of the races may be decided at that point. All voters, regardless of party, should be registered and eligible to vote on these universal ballot measures. (The universal measures will be covered in a later posting.)
This article will provide links and information to check your registration and apply to vote by mail in Collier, Lee and Charlotte counties. It will then provide some historical background regarding elections and hurricanes in Florida.
Bottom line on top: Voting by mail is your best option. Make sure you do what’s necessary. Now.
Registration and vote-by-mail applications
To vote in the Aug. 20 primary, you must be registered to vote by July 22.
Check to make sure you’re properly registered. This is worth doing because there have been allegations in the past of misregistrations. To check, click on the links below and fill out the forms:
The deadline to request a mail-in ballot for the Aug. 20 primary election is Aug. 8 at 5 pm (and that hourly deadline is very important! Nothing after that will be accepted.)
There are several advantages to voting by mail, especially in hurricane-prone Florida.
One is that you don’t have to vote by mail once you have the ballot. You can mail it back, put it in a drop box or take it to a polling station and hand it in there.
This is especially useful if voting is disrupted by weather. It gives you the flexibility to return your ballot several different ways and over a longer period of time.
Another advantage is that once you receive the ballot in the mail, you have the time and leisure to research and ponder items that you may not have previously considered, like judicial elections, amendments or more obscure, down-ballot races.
Also, by and large, voting by mail is reliable. You usually receive your ballot in the mail in a timely fashion and you can reliably return it and be confident that it will be received and properly counted—and you can check online that it has been received.
Even if storms strike, even if mail delivery is disrupted by a storm, voters can get their ballots into the system. The US Postal Service (USPS) makes strenuous efforts to deliver mail even in the wake of severe disasters.
Indeed, there have been times after disasters when the arrival of a USPS delivery truck or mail carrier on foot was the first indication of recovery and a return to normal. This dedication is a much-underappreciated aspect of USPS operations.
The Lee County Supervisor of Elections makes the point on his website that under a new Florida statute that went into effect in April, mail-in ballots will not be forwarded to an address other than the one on the voter’s registration.
(So, in other words, if you’ve requested a mail-in ballot and you’re away from your Florida address when the mail-in ballots go out, you will not receive it at any other address.)
This applies statewide.
Voting by mail only became controversial in 2020. That year it provided a safe way for people to vote despite the COVID pandemic. Then-President Donald Trump went to great lengths to disparage it as “rigged” despite no evidence that it encouraged fraud or tampering. Ironically, in prior elections, voting by mail had actually favored Republicans in Florida since so many were seasonal residents and voted from second homes in northern states. While the Republican Party tried to conceal or contradict Trump’s discouragement of mail-in voting, he created a deep suspicion of the practice that lingers to this day. So far this year he is encouraging voting by mail.
The storms of August
There are plenty of historical examples of hurricanes striking on or around Aug. 20.
As bad as August can be, even the general election on Nov. 5 is not immune from the influence of hurricanes. For example, in 2018 Hurricane Michael struck the Florida panhandle on Oct. 10, just before that year’s midterm elections and disrupted voting. Then, just two years ago in 2022, Hurricane Ian made landfall in Southwest Florida on Sept. 28, a day short of a month before early voting began in the general election.
In both cases, voting was disrupted as people tried to dig out and recover. No doubt voting was far from their minds in the immediate aftermath of the storm. A study of Hurricane Michael found that after the storm voting rates dropped the further voters had to travel to reach operable polling places.
In the event of disasters the governor can authorize special voting arrangements like mobile polling places and emergency election stations. Following Hurricane Ian, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) issued an executive order to officials in Sarasota, Charlotte and Lee counties giving them authority to open polling places wherever feasible.
Given the threat being predicted for the 2024 hurricane season, it’s time for everyone to start preparing. We’re not just protecting our homes and communities; this year like no other, we also need to protect our democracy from all threats foreign, domestic— and climatic.
The Paradise Progressive 