The Paradise Progressive is an effort to cover, analyze and comment on news affecting the Paradise Coast of Southwest Florida that is overlooked, ignored or avoided by local traditional media. It does this to fulfill the role of a free and independent press in a democratic republic.
As the Washington Post states: “Democracy dies in darkness.” But we say: “Liberty lives in light.” Our goal is to shine a light as best we can to dispel the darkness.
The Paradise Progressive is not affiliated with any political party or organization. It was begun on Dec. 20, 2018. The Paradise Progressive can also be viewed on its Facebook page, which features links to other Florida-related postings, and on its website, ParadiseProgressive.com. Videos related to political activities in Southwest Florida can be seen at The Paradise Progressive YouTube channel.
All of Southwest Florida’s congressional representatives voted to keep House Speaker Rep. Michael Johnson (R-4-La.) in his position, rebuffing an attempt by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-14-Ga.) to oust him.
The vote taken this evening at 5:43 pm was to table Greene’s “motion to vacate,” House Resolution 1209, which would have declared the Speaker’s position vacant and set in motion an effort to elect a new Speaker. By tabling the motion, the House set it aside, taking no further action and effectively killing it.
The House voted overwhelmingly, 359 to 43 to table the motion. Some 196 Republicans and 163 Democrats voted for tabling. Only 11 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted against it. Seven Democrats voted “present,” 10 Republicans and 11 Democrats did not vote at all.
Rep. Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.) was very clear about his reasons for the vote.
“This Motion to Vacate vote is nothing more than a patently obvious attempt to seek attention, it will not help achieve any tangible results except media interviews for the proponents,” he stated on X. “Since @SpeakerJohnson was elected, he has proven remarkably adept at achieving conservative policy wins with the smallest majority in modern times. Time and time again he has earned my respect and deserves the support of every House Republican.”
As of this writing, Reps. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) and Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) had not posted statements about their votes on any platform.
Water and insurance: the bane of Florida homeowners.
May 5, 2024 by David Silverberg
Southwest Floridians know that their region is in the midst of a property insurance crisis and faces long-term water issues.
Insurance companies have left the state, people are having difficulty insuring their homes, and rates are skyrocketing. Much of the crisis is caused by repeated hurricanes devastating the area—and a new and potentially disastrous hurricane season looms.
The water issue is simply ensuring that safe, clean, unpolluted water is available to sustain life in the region.
Right now the water issue has reached a new inflection point. There’s a battle between the big sugar companies of Florida’s interior and environmental groups on the Gulf coast like Captains for Clean Water over how to use the water in a major reservoir.
In the midst of these existential problems, one might expect the congressman representing the area, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) to be actively engaged on behalf of the people of his district, roughly the coastal area from Cape Coral to Marco Island.
However, an examination of the political action committees (PACs) contributing to his campaign reveal the heavy presence of Big Insurance and Big Sugar. It means he’s beholden to these industries financially and less likely to intervene when there’s a conflict between the interests of the companies and those of his constituents.
Which PACs have purchased a piece of Donalds? Their contributions are revealed in filings with the Federal Election Committee (FEC). While these contributions are legal and properly filed, they do reveal patterns of influence that explain Donalds’ handling—or neglect—of key issues vitally affecting Southwest Florida.
As it has since Donalds boasted that “the PACs didn’t get me elected” in 2021, The Paradise Progressive has issued periodic reports on his PAC support.
The issues go well beyond just insurance and sugar. PAC donations reveal a full spectrum of businesses and industries seeking to influence the congressman.
It needs to be stressed that none of this reporting alleges illegality or wrongdoing since these filings are in keeping with federal law. Also, to be compliant, none of these contributions are supposed to be given in exchange for a definite quid pro quo, a specific official action in return for a specific contribution. However, as will be seen, in one case contributions did perhaps “inspire” a very specific legislative initiative.
Big insurance
Donalds has a longstanding relationship with the insurance industry.
In the past session he sat on the House Small Business’ Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations Subcommittee, which oversaw regulations that included the heavily regulated insurance industry.
In this session he sits on the House Oversight and Accountability’s Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee.
On this committee he mainly used his position to bash the Biden administration for a wide variety of reasons, including many related to Hunter Biden and to pursue a presidential impeachment, which went nowhere. However, given the subcommittee involvement in regulatory affairs, it’s no surprise that the insurance industry saw fit to invest in his campaign in this cycle.
Some 16 insurance industry PACs contributed a total of $94,000 to the Donalds campaign in 2023. In the first quarter of 2024 he added $4,000 from the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, Inc., PAC and $7,000 from the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Federal PAC.
The other insurance industry PACs contributing are (in alphabetical order): American Council of Life Insurers PAC; American Property Casualty Insurance Association PAC; Enact Holdings, Inc. PAC; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company – PAC; Metlife Inc. Employees’ Political Participation Fund A; Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation PAC; National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors PAC; National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies PAC; New York Life Insurance Company PAC; Protective Life Corporation Federal PAC; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Federal PAC; The Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers PAC; The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. Federal PAC; and the Wholesale and Specialty Insurance Association PAC.
The bottom line conclusion from all this is that in any conflict between constituents and insurance companies, Donalds is very beholden to the insurance industry and very unlikely to contradict the industry’s interests.
Big sugar and bad water
In Southwest Florida the sugar industry has a major presence. It has always been deeply involved in the legislative process either to maintain federal sugar subsidies or to fend off restrictive legislation.
The industry has also been accused in the past of contributing to the pollution of Lake Okeechobee, a charge the companies have vehemently denied. When released, polluted water from the lake flows down the Caloosahatchee River through Fort Myers, contributing to the growth of blue-green algae, threatening the health of both people and wildlife. The companies have denied causing the pollution and argued that they follow environmentally responsible practices.
However, right now a new battle has broken out.
Sugar companies are suing the US Army Corps of Engineers to access water from the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) reservoir rather than allow it to purify before flowing south into the Everglades and to the coast.
Environmental organizations like Captains for Clean Water are petitioning the sugar companies US Sugar Corp, Florida Crystals and the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida to drop the lawsuit. If the lawsuit succeeds, according to the organization, the sugar companies will hoard the water at the expense of all other water users, change the purpose of the reservoir and could use it for their own purposes, polluting it. It could lead to events like the Big Bloom of 2018 when Southwest Florida was hit by both red tide and blue-green toxic algae blooms at the same time.
Donalds has been a major recipient of the sugar PACs’ largesse. In 2023 seven sugar industry PACs contributed a total of $11,000 to Donalds’ campaign. They were: the American Crystal Sugar Company PAC ($5,000), Amalgamated Sugar Company PAC ($1,500), the American Sugar Cane League of USA Inc. PAC ($1,000), the Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative Sugar PAC ($1,000), the Western Sugar Cooperative PAC ($1,000), Florida Sugar Cane League PAC ($1,000), and the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida PAC ($500).
Big finance, big banking and big tech
In 2023, after the insurance industry, the next largest contribution, $70,000, was donated by 24 financial services PACs.
This was followed by 18 banking PACs contributing a total of $67,000.
Donalds’ seat on the Digital Assets subcommittee has also made him a magnet for big technology contributions. Accordingly, in 2023 he received donations from the Microsoft Corporation Stakeholders Voluntary PAC ($3,000), Comcast Corporation and NBC Universal PAC – Federal ($2,500), Google LLC NetPAC ($2,000), Meta Platforms PAC (the company owning Facebook) ($1,000), AT&T Inc. Employee Federal PAC ($1,000), Verizon Communications, Inc., PAC ($1,000) and Charter Communications Inc., PAC ($2,500), a broadband connectivity and cable operating company.
In the first quarter of 2024, Donalds received $3,500 more from Comcast/Universal PAC, $578 from ROC Media LLC, a company that does targeted digital messaging based variously out of Sheridan, Wy., and the Virgin Islands, and $258 from Better Mousetrap Digital, a Vancouver, Canada-based digital marketing company.
Energy, nuclear and fossil
Examination of Donalds’ 2023 contributions reveals some differences from his 2022 cycle.
One of the most striking changes is in the energy sector.
For all of the Sunshine State’s sunshine—and its potential for solar power—Donalds has instead championed nuclear power.
According to Congress.gov, 14 of Donalds’ 53 bills (roughly 26 percent) in the current Congress related to the nuclear power industry, mostly deregulating it or in some way favoring it.
(A note on this: Congress.gov is the official count of the US Congress. It shows Donalds sponsoring 53 standalone bills, nine resolutions and four amendments, or 66 pieces of legislation altogether in the 118th Congress. Donalds’ office counts him as sponsoring 77 pieces of legislation.)
Donalds benefited from energy industry PACs and seven of them contributed a total of $25,500 in the 2024 cycle. Fossil fuel PACs included those from the companies Sinclair, Valero, Marathon and Exxon Mobile as well as NextEra Energy, a utility infrastructure company, and Duke Energy, an energy holding company. Also contributing was the overall trade group for fossil fuels, the American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association PAC.
While the fossil fuel companies have all diversified their energy sources in past years, it is interesting to note that the premier nuclear industry PAC, the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Federal PAC, did not make a contribution, which an observer might otherwise expect. Of course, that could change during the course of this year’s campaign.
Ideological PACs
In addition to industry PACs, Donalds received a variety of contributions from fellow members of Congress and ideologically-driven organizations.
In 2023 these included the Eye of the Tiger PAC run by House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-1-La.), which contributed $5,000 to Donalds’ campaign. The Scalise for Congress committee also contributed $2,000.
The Let’s Get to Work PAC of Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) donated $5,000. Other members of Congress whose PACs have contributed include: Reps. Jim Jordan (R-4-Ohio) (Jim Jordan for Congress, $2,000); Jason Smith (R-8-Mo.) (Mr. Southern Missourian in the House PAC, $5,000); Patrick McHenry (R-10-NC) (Innovation PAC, $5,000); and John James (R-10-Mich.) (Mission First People Always PAC, $2,000). Former Wisconsin congressman and current Fox News commentator Sean Duffy (Duffy for Wisconsin) contributed $2,000.
In the first quarter of 2024, the Lean Forward America Fund, run by Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-38-Texas), another African American conservative member of Congress, contributed an unusually large $15,601.74 to Donalds’ campaign.
The curious case of the Kochs and Americans for Prosperity
When he first ran for Congress in 2020 Donalds was backed by Americans for Prosperity, an ideological PAC backed by the extremely conservative David and Charles Koch brothers of Wichita, Kansas. Its contributions put him over the finish line in both the primary and general elections in what was then a very tight race.
But Americans for Prosperity is missing from this cycle’s list of Donalds’ PAC donors. One reason for that may be Donalds’ embrace of earmarks, special appropriations requested by members of Congress for their districts.
Initially denounced by Republicans, Party members changed tack in 2022, embracing earmarks first with disgust and then enthusiastically when they won control of the House.
In the first year that earmarks were again permitted Donalds didn’t bother to request any for the 19th Congressional District, subjecting him to local criticism (“SWFL loses out on federal millions when Donalds won’t ask for cash”). He has changed that since then and now entertains requests from constituents.
But that may have alienated Americans for Prosperity, which has remained staunchly anti-earmark despite the Republican change of heart.
Another reason may be that the Koch brothers very publicly backed former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley for president and Donalds is an outspoken Trumper.
Whatever the reason, Americans for Prosperity were not among Donalds’ donors in this cycle.
However, the Koch Industries PAC remained a backer. It contributed a total of $4,000 in 2024 and $2,000 in 2023.
Analysis: The mother’s milk of politics
There has been money in politics going back to the days when Marcus Licinius Crassus bankrolled an aggressive young Roman politician named Julius Caesar.
It’s certainly nothing new. Money has been called the “mother’s milk of politics” and Byron Donalds certainly knows how to suck at that teat.
Donalds may not be a productive lawmaker or an effective advocate for his Southwest Florida constituents but he is a relentless and persistent fundraiser.
His fundraising appeals have headlines like “Stopping the cheating Democrats dead in their tracks.” They feature statements like: “Next to Crooked Joe INTERFERING in the 2024 election, what’s the one common denominator across the Left’s many Witch Hunt [sic] against President Trump? SOROS. Soros-funded DAs, Soros-funded prosecutors – all accomplices to Crooked Joe’s attempt to DESTROY his chief political rival like a Third World Marxist.”
It’s shrill and extreme but it seems to work—and even if Donalds didn’t write this purple prose himself, it goes out under his name and with his approval.
Donalds enters his re-election campaign with a substantial war chest. According to the 2024 1st quarter filings, as of March 31 he had $3.2 million (or $3,249,767.73, to be exact) on hand. Of that, $2,259,178.60 came from individual contributions and of that roughly half, $1,166,795.32, came in donations under $200, so the donors don’t have to be individually reported. He has already spent $2.5 million ($2,571,446.38) on the campaign.
The PAC contributions are much more modest: a total of $371,134.15. But it’s the PAC contributions that reveal Donalds’ ties to the various industries and businesses that keep him in office.
And one case in particular reveals the connection between money and legislation and Byron Donalds.
The smokin’ stogey
The image of cigar-chomping politicians doing deals in reeking, smoke-filled back rooms with other puffing politicos is an old one.
But in the case of Donalds, when it comes to cigars, the scene is more literal.
Donalds is a fan of cigars. He even has a “cigar chair” in his Washington, DC office for the occasional smoke.
Alex Lorusso, a conservative online journalist, works on an interview in Rep. Byron Donalds’ “cigar chair” in his Washington Office on Nov. 7, 2023. (Photo: Office of Rep. Donalds)
But Donalds’ affinity for cigars goes well beyond simply smoking them—and illustrates the PAC-Congress connection.
Political contributions are supposed to be for general campaign purposes; they’re rarely tied to specific pieces of legislation or official actions—which if done improperly is illegal.
In the spring of 2023, Donalds received $5,000, the legal limit, from Swisher PAC, the political arm of Swisher International Inc., a tobacco company based in Jacksonville, Fla., which sells cigars among its many products. He also received $4,000 in two contributions from the Premium Cigar Association PAC, which represents high-end cigar and pipe tobacconists.
On Nov. 9, 2023 Donalds introduced House Joint Resolution (HJRes) 99 to “Amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to Exempt the Premium Cigar Industry from Certain Regulations.”
Under the bill a premium cigar would not be classified as a “tobacco product” and so would not be subject to regulations covering other tobacco products like cigarettes. These regulations include prohibiting sales of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 21, marketing to children, selling fruit or candy-flavored products to entice underage children to smoke and making false or misleading claims that a tobacco product isn’t harmful.
The exemption has been the goal of the premium cigar industry for some time.
After introducing the bill, on Dec. 13 Donalds received an additional $1,000 from the Premium Cigar PAC.
Like the rest of Donalds’ legislative proposals, HJRes 99 hasn’t gone anywhere. It sits in the House Energy and Commerce’s health subcommittee, where it has remained since the day after it was introduced.
But it illustrates the relationship between PACs and members of Congress in general.
And in Donalds’ case that’s a pretty tight relationship.
An archetypal scene of a smoke-filled room from the 1933 movie, The Invisible Man. (Image:Universal)
Of historical note: This article marks the 500th post of The Paradise Progressive.
Collier County voters participate in the 2018 election. (Photo: Author)
April 29, 2024 by David Silverberg
Collier County’s Supervisor of Elections and her team are dedicated to providing “secure, ethical elections,” their work is “excellent,” “they do a great job” and “the way elections are run in Collier county, they are run smoothly.”
Those words of praise for county Supervisor of Elections (SoE) Melissa Blazier and her team came from—of all people—the two candidates who are trying to unseat her in this year’s Supervisor of Elections race by alleging election unreliability.
The unlikely accolades were uttered by Timothy Guerrette and David Schaffel as they testified regarding the “Resolution for a Legally Valid 2024 General Election” on Tuesday, April 23.
The resolution was introduced by Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2). It asserted that the 2022 election in Florida was faulty and it would have imposed new, disruptive conditions on the 2024 election count. Ultimately, the county Board of Commissioners chose not to advance it, effectively killing it.
Nonetheless, the fact that two of the candidates and the incumbent all testified at the meeting highlighted their respective policy prescriptions, qualifications and shed some light on what they might do in office.
Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier
Collier County Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier. (Photo: SoE)
Melissa Blazier, 46, is the current sitting SoE. She came out swinging against the resolution from the very moment it was shared with her by Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2).
In an April 18 message to Hall, she warned that his resolution was “deeply flawed and highly unnecessary” and “riddled with erroneous conclusions.”
Most of the resolution’s demands, she wrote, “are either already incorporated into existing law, are in direct violation of existing law or would require technology that is not yet available or authorized for use in the State of Florida” and asked him not to pass “this egregious resolution.”
She repeated these arguments when she testified remotely at the meeting.
Blazier has served as an election professional in Collier County for over 18 years.
“I was trained by the best, so for over 17 years I worked under Jennifer [Edwards, the previous supervisor] and I have no plans in changing the way that we conduct elections in Collier County, any of our voter registration, voter outreach, elections. Our goal is just to improve,” she told The Paradise Progressive in an interviewed published July 3, 2023.
Improvements are what Blazier and her office have been steadily making during her time in office, mostly of the unheralded, back-office variety, included improving access to archived information, handling public information requests, improving security and streamlining office processes.
In addition to her years of experience in the Supervisor’s office, Blazier is certified as an Elections/Registration Administrator by the National Association of Election Officials’ Election Center and is a Master Florida Certified Elections Professional through the Florida Supervisors of Elections.
Educationally, she has a magna cum laude Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from Hodges University. In 2010 she graduated from the Associate Leadership Collier program spring class of 2010, the 2014 Leadership Collier class and the Leadership Marco class of 2019.
Since July 2023, Blazier has raised $69,104.55 for her campaign, according to county campaign finance records. Much of it was from her own pocket.
Tim Guerrette
Tim Guerrette (Image: CCBC)
Timothy Guerrette, 56, took a cautious position during the commission debate, calling for “a” resolution rather than “this” resolution.
“I want to let you know that I support a resolution that is seeking to improve our elections here in Collier County and send a message to Tallahassee we are pro-actively seeking ways here in Collier County to improve our elections,” he said.
He praised Collier County and its election staff for their dedication to “secure, ethical elections in Collier County.”
Guerrette has no previous election experience. He’s a former chief of the Collier County Sheriff’s Office, from which he retired in 2021 after 31 years of service. He has also worked as a real estate broker and since retirement has hosted an “Uncensored 239” podcast.
He has experience in police operations and management and says in a campaign video that he will bring “competence and integrity back into the voting process.” During his testimony he said that wanted to make sure that Collier County remained the “gold standard” of elections and that once in office he’d make sure that “We are running smooth elections, there is nothing to see here.”
Since beginning his quest for office in March 2023, Guerrette has raised $113,772.93, according to Collier County campaign finance records. Many of the donations came from active and former law enforcement officers, including $1,000 from the Friends of Carmine Marceno Political Action Committee. Marceno is the sheriff in neighboring Lee County.
He also received contributions from members of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Rick LoCastro (R-District 1) contributed $260.25 in September 2023 and Commissioner Dan Kowal (R-District 4) contributed $600 in November.
David Schaffel
David Schaffel (Image: CCBC)
Dave Schaffel, 63, fully supported the resolution.
Schaffel presented himself as “a resident here in Collier County. I spent my entire 40-year career in the information technology field in the private sector specializing in big databases, data analysis, business intelligence and security. I’ve been a successful IT entrepreneur, investor and public company executive.”
However, nowhere in his testimony did he provide any specifics of employment, names of companies or institutions, educational qualifications, past election involvement or specific accomplishments as an entrepreneur. His website is similarly vague.
Nonetheless, he said, “In the last few years I have immersed myself in learning about the technology behind our election systems as well as the Florida election statutes that oversee the process.”
While strongly supporting the resolution, he also made the point “that this resolution in no way disparages or criticizes the excellent work of the many volunteers that work the polling places during our elections or the many hardworking public servants employed in the Collier County Supervisor of Elections office.”
Suspicion of election results is the cornerstone of his campaign. A campaign video opens with questions about the result of the 2020 election. “Corrupt, bloated and out-of-touch bureaucrats are almost always the problem and rarely the solution,” he says. He calls himself a “rock-solid conservative and America First patriot.”
In his testimony to the commissioners, Schaffel had a great many suspicions about aspects of Florida elections including voting by mail, chains of custody and machine versus hand counts of ballots, although he made no specific charges (which were included in the resolution).
He said he and other election activists had been rebuffed in Tallahassee when they tried to promote legislative change in voting procedures. They were convinced that technological vulnerabilities had led to hacking and vote-flipping. As an example, he said that a street had its addresses flipped to create undeliverable mail but he provided no specifics or sources for the charge. It was unclear whether this incident even occurred in Florida at all.
Ultimately, he opposed the use of technology in general. “As a technologist…when it comes to our elections, given our current statutes and our current lack of transparency, that less technology would be the best,” he said.
For all that, when questioned by Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-District 3), Schaffel had nothing but praise for Blazier and her office.
Asked if he was satisfied by the way elections were conducted in the county, Schaffel responded, “Yes, I think the way elections are run in Collier county, they’re run smoothly.”
While he didn’t trust election machine companies and the tendency of officials to accept their assurances, he had no problem with the office or staff.
“This is not a disparagement – they are doing their jobs in that office,” he said. “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.”
To date, Schaffel has received $12,447.54 in campaign contributions, mostly from his own pocket. However, one notable outside contribution came on Jan. 12 of this year: $1,000 from the Friends of Chris Hall Political Action Committee—the commissioner who introduced the election resolution.
Analysis: Making the system work
The discontent with election processes reflected in the election-alteration resolution is an echo of election denialism from the 2020 presidential election and Blazier’s two challengers reflect this.
By their own testimony they denied that there was anything at all wrong with Blazier’s performance or that of the Collier County’s elections office. They praised the volunteers and professionals who conduct the county’s elections.
Why, then, are they running? Is the SoE office so lucrative and desirable that it’s worth spending all the money they’re investing to attain it? Is it so powerful that it can change the world?
Both Guerrette and Schaffel are running on the suspicion that something is wrong in elections.
Schaffel is more specific of the two, pointing to supposed vulnerabilities in vote counting and communications and alleging hacking and vote-flipping—without providing specifics. He’s a proponent of the anti-machine wing of the election-denial movement, one that sees hand counts as more reliable, a position taken by local farmer and grocer Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III.
But neither has any experience or relevant credentials in election administration. Guerrette comes out of the world of law enforcement and has some management experience but it’s nothing that compares with Blazier’s 18-plus years specifically in the Collier County office.
Both say they want “improvements” in election management. But the Collier County SoE has been improving steadily and incrementally throughout its history—and someone like Blazier knows where improvements need to be made. Neither Guerrette nor Schaffel would actually be in a position to make knowledgeable improvements if elected.
As was pointed out repeatedly during the commissioners’ meeting, Hall didn’t question his own election results and that’s been true with election-deniers since 2020; they’re so obsessed with contesting the top line races they ignore all the other down-ballot results. In 2022 Collier County conducted 44 different elections, from state and county officials, to constitutional amendments, to judges to bond issues, none of which have been criticized.
Given the deep-seated disbelief and mistrust among a slice of Collier County voters, there is no result and no solution that would ever allay their suspicions. Indeed, electing either of them would make Collier County elections far less reliable and compliant.
Sometimes it takes the people in place who know how to make something work to make it actually work properly. That’s the case in Collier County.
Both Guerrette and Schaffel, when pressed, acknowledged that Collier County has had clean, honest, competently administered elections. That’s the result of the experienced, knowledgeable administration of Melissa Blazier. Neither offered anything better.
The conclusion seems inescapable: When it comes to the Office of Election Supervisor in Collier County, Fla., perhaps there is no wisdom wiser than that in the old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”—and by their own admission, the challengers don’t believe anything here needs fixing.
Collier County, Fla., voters line up to cast their ballots in the 2020 election. (Photo: Author)
Rep. Byron Donalds introduces Alfie Oakes at a gathering at Food & Thought 2 last Wednesday.
April 26, 2024 by David Silverberg
Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III will be running again to keep his seat as a Collier County Republican state committeeman, he announced Wednesday, April 24.
Oakes, a local farmer, grocer and Trumpist activist, made the announcement at a gathering at his Food & Thought 2 restaurant. The Republican primary election is scheduled for August 20.
Oakes was endorsed by Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) and said in his turn he supports Donalds as well for whatever position he seeks, mentioning the possibility of Donalds’ running for governor in 2026.
In his remarks he also mentioned that while “America First” Republicans had been successful in the past, their preferred candidate, Ted Blankenship, had been rebuffed for mayor in the City of Naples election on March 19, as a result of “country club Republicans.” He said he anticipated different results in Collier County in the upcoming elections.
Oakes endorsed Kristina Heuser for a committe position on the Collier County Republican Executive Committee (CCREC) to replace the current member, JoAnn DeBartolo, a longtime conservative, pro-Trump activist.
Heuser is a local lawyer and the drafter of Collier County’s anti-federal nullification ordinance, which passed the Board of Commissioners last August. A previous ordinance she wrote was defeated in 2021.
Kristina Heuser.
Donalds, Oakes and Heuser all called for unity among Republicans, while acknowledging differences of opinion within the Party.
“Before the Democrats do anything to us, we have to make sure that we don’t do anything to ourselves,” said Donalds. He said that while Republicans had divisions it was only the result of “a passionate commitment” to keep Florida the best state in the country “but that is only going to happen if we unite as one party.”
Oakes said that he opposed DeBartolo for another term on the Committee but chose not to elaborate, saying “if you can’t say something nice about someone don’t say anything at all.”
In her address Heuser stated: “There is an evil, George Soros-funded movement in Florida,” she said of the initiative to amend the state Constitution to guarantee a right to abortion. Amendment 4 supporters “want to legalize abortion through birth, not through a law that can be undone but by putting it into the Florida state Constitution.” She urged listeners to vote against it in November.
She continued: “They are going to say this is to protect women’s health but no, this is to say that the legislature cannot restrict abortion at all.”
She said she would work “to make sure the Republican Party continues to stand for life.”
She also said that while working in New York she had met people who lost their jobs for refusing to take the COVID vaccine and “the government should never tell you [that] you have to inject toxic drugs into your body.”
She said she and the others gathered there were present “we’re here to protect Biblical values” and “We seek the truth through love, that is what the Bible tells us to do.”
Still, Collier County has ‘a superb system’ for elections
Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall at the moment he discussed 9/11. (Image: CCBC)
April 24, 2024 by David Silverberg
During discussion of his election-disrupting resolution during the Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting yesterday, April 23, Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2) said that the election of President Joe Biden in 2020 hit him harder than the terrorist-piloted planes that smashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
“I’ll never forget how I felt the night of the 2020 election,” said Hall. “It was worse than I felt on 9/11.”
He continued: “There was something just deeply wrong with that and I know several in here in the room was ecstatic about that. But there was nothing that was fair about that election, when the results didn’t even show up and had been manipulated.”
He then declined to continue on the subject or offer evidence. “You know, I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole but there’s a rabbit hole to go down,” he said.
Hall’s comparison of the 2020 election results to 9/11 brought a rare rebuke from fellow Commissioner Rick LoCastro (R-District 1) when it was his turn to speak. LoCastro is a retired US Air Force colonel and Air Force Academy graduate.
“First I want to say something to you, Chairman Hall, and I mean this with no disrespect,” he said, somberly. “I was unhappy in 2020 but I got to tell you, as a veteran, I could never say it was worse than 9/11. I lost so many people on 9/11 and afterwards and so…. I understand how you package the meaning you were trying to say and so I realize you’re not being disrespectful, you’re a huge supporter of veterans but I just want to go on the record to all the veterans that are here: 9/11 was horrific, OK?
“Nobody died in 2020. I lost hundreds of friends, I held dead people in my arms, I put American flags over caskets, I put them on airplanes after 9/11 and after, so I don’t ask you to rescind those comments and I say this with all due respect so I’m not…I hope you’re hearing this in a positive [way].”
Referring to Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-District 3), LoCastro continued: “So I think, as Commissioner Saunders said, sometimes words matter and we speak up here very quickly about domestic animal services and other things and Conservation Collier, but I just wanted to go on the record and say 9/11 was horrific and I don’t think there’s many things that I hope will [ever] top that.”
A number of public speakers at yesterday’s meeting, including Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier, pointed out that invalidating the 2022 election would have invalidated Hall’s own election, since that was when he won office.
But Hall was at pains to argue that his resolution did not target Collier County and he praised Blazier and the work of her office.
“One of the hardest things I’ve ever done is sit here for 45 minutes and hear this applied to things it doesn’t even apply to,” he said impatiently when the public comment period was over. “We are not talking about our local supervisor of elections. We’re not talking about Collier County, in no way. If I was ever illegally elected I would resign in three seconds.”
In Collier County, he said, “We have a superb system and I have utmost confidence that we were all elected fairly.”
The resolution was aimed at being part of a national movement to alter voting procedures, he said. “…I just want to make it very, very clear this resolution has nothing to do with our local supervisor of elections, our local integrity. It has to do with the people that’s—it’s a grassroots effort, it’s a movement to begin here and go with every county in Florida to send to our state legislators and our state Senate to let them know how important, fair, accurate and accountable elections are. That’s all it is.”
As he put it: “We want the fire to begin here.”
Commentary: finale
Given the public opposition and lack of support of the Board of Commissioners for the resolution that would have significantly altered voting procedures and made them more cumbersome, restrictive and possibly illegal, the United Sovereign Americans effort to light that fire certainly did not ignite yesterday in Collier County. Fla.
The Collier County Board of Commissioners during yesterday’s meeting. (Image: CCBC)
Commissioner Chris Hall at today’s Board of Commissioners meeting. (Image: CCBC)
April 23, 2024 by David Silverberg
Correction, April 26: Vincent Keeys did not serve on the Canvassing Board but observed its operations.
Without taking a vote, the Collier County Board of Commissioners today agreed not to advance a resolution calling for major changes to county elections, effectively killing the proposal.
The bill was drafted by an entity calling itself United Sovereign Americans, which is trying to alter elections across the United States. An activist named Marly Hornik is the only confirmed member of what purports to be a national organization.
During public comments at the meeting numerous Collier County residents rose to praise the work done by Collier County Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier and denounce the conspiracy theories contained in the resolution.
Diane Preston Moore, president of the Collier County League of Women Voters, said the League officially opposed the resolution, calling its title “misleading.” As for its allegations, she said, “saying something is so doesn’t make it so.”
Vincent Keeys, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who had observed the Canvassing Board overseeing local elections stated that while Hall had every right to bring the resolution forward, “Collier County has no voting irregularities” and called the resolution “ridiculous, very costly and absolutely unnecessary.”
Blazier testified remotely, reiterating arguments she made in an April 18 letter to Hall. She called the resolution “deeply flawed and highly unnecessary” and urged commissioners to “reject this resolution.”
Commission discussion
Following the public comment portion of the meeting, Hall made the point that the resolution was not aimed at Collier County but was intended to be part of a national effort to alter elections in general. “We want the fire to begin here,” he said and if the resolution passed it would be carried to the rest of Florida’s 67 counties.
He also denied that the resolution’s establishing clauses alleging 2022 Florida voting irregularities were directed at Collier County or its conduct of elections. “This is not about us here in Collier County,” he said.
None of the other commissioners were impressed with the resolution.
“This resolution is not ready for prime time,” said Commissioner William McDaniel (R-District 5). “It stipulates a lot of things that are not consequential to Collier County.” He also pointed out that “There is not a soul in this room who does not want election integrity.”
Commissioner Rick LoCastro (R-District 1) was similarly leery, saying that it required a lot more discussion before moving forward. “I would not be comfortable voting on this now,” he said.
Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-District 3) said that while the resolution was “well-intentioned” he was prepared to vote against it if it was presented for formal approval. “I don’t think we should continue it. It is flawed to the point where we should start over. Let’s start over again with something that will be meaningful.”
Commissioner Dan Kowal (R-District 4) said: “I don’t want to put my name to something that’s a cookie-cutter resolution,” referring to its outside origins.
While McDaniel initially wanted to make the resolution a continuing matter to be taken up again at a later date, Saunders argued that it should advance no further.
Given the general reluctance to put the matter to a vote to formally defeat it, McDaniel, LoCastro, Kowal and ultimately Hall all agreed with Saunders that the best course was simply not to advance it in any way.
The resolution was thus killed without a vote. However all the commissioners stated they were open to hearing suggestions to improve elections in Collier County and welcomed input from residents.
Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall, who is planning to introduce a resolution to alter county elections on Tuesday. (Image: CCBC)
April 21, 2024 by David Silverberg
A resolution demanding election changes in Collier County that is expected to be introduced to the Board of Commissioners this coming Tuesday, April 23, is actually a standard, cookie-cutter template drafted by an organization whose executive director has in the past been warned against voter intimidation, election interference and false representation.
Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2) is expected to introduce a “Resolution for a Legally Valid 2024 General Election” at the Tuesday meeting. Discussion of the resolution is on the Board’s agenda.
The resolution was not locally drafted and the 11 demands it makes are not solutions tailored to Collier County needs. They are part of a national effort to profoundly change US elections by United Sovereign Americans, a national non-profit 501c3 organization that purports to promote election integrity.
The 11 demands in the resolution include stringent identity requirements, voting audits, multiple witnesses for operations and requirements for new elections if conditions are not met. (The full resolution text and its supporting documentation can be accessed and downloaded at the conclusion of this article.)
The resolution would disrupt upcoming elections in Collier County, county Supervisor of Elections, Melissa Blazier told Hall in an April 18 message. She called it “deeply flawed and highly unnecessary.” (The full text of her message is below.)
The resolution is in two parts. The first part makes unsupported allegations of election fraud in the 2022 Florida election. These allegations were conveyed to Hall by the Election Integrity Committee of the Collier County Republican Executive Committee (CCREC).
Blazier stated these allegations were “riddled with erroneous conclusions and lack any manner of legally relevant evidence.”
The second part of the resolution is just a copy of the United Sovereign Americans’ standard draft resolution produced and distributed by the organization.
Blazier wrote: “The majority of requests this resolution calls for are either already incorporated into existing law, are in direct violation of existing law or would require technology that is not yet available or authorized for use in the State of Florida.”
She noted that her office was not obligated to abide by the resolution but rather by the laws of the state and the US Constitution. Resolutions are non-binding statements of opinion by legislative bodies.
“To use the words of Governor DeSantis, Florida is the GOLD STANDARD for election administration and Collier County is a leader in the state for conducting elections,” she wrote. “By considering or even passing this resolution, the public’s confidence in the elections that are conducted by the hundreds of Collier County citizen election workers who work hard to ensure fair, accurate and legal elections is further eroded.”
Past allegations
Since the election of 2020, unsupported allegations of election fraud and calls to audit or overturn certified elections are nothing new in Collier County.
While United Sovereign Americans’ website claims chapters in 24 states and thousands of volunteers, it does not provide a single name, identify a director, or provide a headquarters location.
In an undated podcast, Hornik told interviewer Jeff Dornik that United Sovereign Americans was “working in state after state to prove that non-compliant and inaccurate elections were certified as compliant and accurate” and that “the elections were a sham, that the certifications were an act of perjury.”
In 2023, New York State Attorney Letitia James sent a cease and desist letter to Hornik stating “that reports alleging that volunteers from the NY Citizens Audit Civic Fund have confronted voters across the state at their homes, falsely claimed to be Board of Elections officials, and falsely accused voters of committing felony voter fraud.”
The letter demanded: “You are hereby instructed to cease and desist any ongoing or contemplated voter deception and intimidation efforts, including instructing or otherwise causing volunteers to falsely represent themselves as government officials or falsely accuse voters of voter fraud. Voter deception and intimidation have no place in New York, and the [Office of Attorney General] will use every tool at its disposal to protect New York voters.”
(The full text of the letter can be accessed and downloaded below.)
United Sovereign Americans is calling for election challenges across the United States. As part of that effort it provides the 11-point draft resolution for local political bodies to use as a model for election demands. This is the same draft being used by Hall for his resolution in Collier County.
As a basis for its allegations of Florida voting irregularities in 2022, Hall’s resolution cites the information provided by the CCREC.
A key member of the CCREC is Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III, a local farmer and grocer, who is also an elected Party state committeeman.
Oakes has been an intense adherent of President Donald Trump’s untrue allegations of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
In 2021 he called for an audit of the results of the 2020 election results in Florida, despite their being uncontested by any party and the fact that they led to all Republican victories. On the Alex Jones InfoWars show, he offered a $100,000 political contribution to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) if the governor would sit down for two hours to listen to Oakes’ allegations of election fraud in person. This prompted fellow Trump activist Christy McLaughlin to warn that such a direct quid pro quo contribution would constitute a bribe, an argument Oakes rejected. Ultimately, DeSantis never took up the offer and the election results were unchallenged.
The allegations of voter fraud passed on by the CCREC prompted Blazier to ask why, if they were aware of election irregularities, they weren’t reported to the proper authorities at the time.
Blazier’s message to Hall is provided in full below:
Commissioner Hall,
As Collier County Supervisor of Elections, with 18+ years of election administration experience, I find the attached proposed resolution to be deeply flawed and highly unnecessary. The statements purporting to support the 11 requests are riddled with erroneousness conclusions and lack any manner of legally relevant evidence. I am concerned that this matter is being presented to the board without being thoroughly vetted to the legitimacy of its claims. One of the key questions is, if the outside organization that provided this information to the Collier County Republican Executive Committee had proof or evidence that the State of Florida’s election had violated both federal and state laws, why would they not present that evidence through the proper legal channels versus through a nonbinding resolution at the local level? This resolution states that the 2022 General Election, in the State of Florida, was fraught with massive inaccuracies that violate both Federal and State laws. This is the same election, may I remind you, that 44 races and contests were decided in Collier County – including County Commission District 2.
The majority of requests this resolution calls for are either already incorporated into existing law, are in direct violation of existing law or would require technology that is not yet available or authorized for use in the State of Florida. My comments on each of the 11 requests is also attached. As election officials in Florida, my staff and I take an oath of office to uphold both the US and Florida constitutions and to implement Florida’s election laws. Should this resolution pass, we are under no obligation to follow it unless otherwise required by state and federal law.
To use the words of Governor DeSantis, Florida is the GOLD STANDARD for election administration and Collier County is a leader in the state for conducting elections. By considering or even passing this resolution, the public’s confidence in the elections that are conducted by the hundreds of Collier County citizen election workers who work hard to ensure fair, accurate and legal elections is further eroded. The statements in this resolution only fuel the harassment of the many individuals who come together to ensure the integrity of the electoral process in our community.
I truly hope that you give consideration to my thoughts and concerns and do not pass this egregious resolution.
Sincerely,
Melissa R. Blazier
Since Hall is expected to introduce his resolution at the Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting this coming Tuesday, April 23, Collier County residents can express an opinion on this matter by writing or calling their commissioners. The resolution is listed as agenda item 10A and residents who sign up in person the day of the meeting can speak before the Board for 3 minutes.
Passage yesterday of a $95 billion aid package to Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific in the US House of Representatives revealed fundamental differences among Southwest Florida’s representatives regarding America’s role in the world.
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.), chair of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, had a key role in drafting the legislation and voted for it. He supports active American involvement in world affairs and events.
Reps. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) and Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) voted against it, advocating an insular, isolationist approach that would favor Russia’s conquest of Ukraine.
The bill passed in an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 316 to 94.
One hundred and sixty five Democrats and 151 Republicans voted to approve the measure, while 55 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted against it. Twenty-one members did not vote.
The package consisted of four bills: the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act (House Resolution (HR) 8034; the Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act (HR 8035); the Indo-Pacific Security Supplemental Act (HR 8036); and the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act (HR 8038). The last was a miscellany of measures including sanctions against Russia and Iran, international crime prevention measures and anti-fentanyl and Tik-Tok prohibitions.
These bills will now be merged with a bill already passed in the Senate, and a vote on the whole is expected today, Saturday, April 20.
Diaz-Balart strongly promoted the legislation prior to the vote.
“As Chairman of the subcommittee that provides funds for national security and foreign assistance priorities, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of these important pieces of legislation,” he stated in a press release on April 17. “The strategic alliance between our most dangerous adversaries, such as communist China, Russia, and the terrorist State of Iran, poses a direct threat to our national security. This bill fully funds our security commitments to support Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan, which are confronting existential challenges as they face threats from dangerous, anti-American regimes. Passage of this critical national security legislation will support US interests in the Middle East, Europe, and the Indo-Pacific, and make us safer here at home by supporting our military.”
He continued: “There is nothing our adversaries would love more than for the United States to fail to stand with our friends in their time of greatest need. We have no time to spare. Passage of this aid package is critical.”
In contrast, immediately after voting against the bill, Donalds posted on X: “Government must put the AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST.”
Steube opposed the bill on both partisan and substantive grounds.
“Tells you a lot about our current Republican ‘leadership’ when there are more Democrats than Republicans voting for a so-called ‘Republican’ rule…” he posted on X when the House debated the rules for considering the measure.
Steube made his objections to security assistance in general known in March during earlier consideration of Ukraine and Israel aid. On March 22 he posted on X: “101 Republicans just voted for an out-of-control spending bill that includes more money for Ukraine and $500 million for Jordan’s border security…Meanwhile, as we sit here in Washington DC, our country is being invaded. What about America’s border security? This bill is AMERICA LAST.”
Donalds’ and Steube’s opposition is in keeping with that of the extreme conservative wing of the Republican Party, which is now considering attempting the ouster of House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-4-La.) for working with Democrats to pass the package.
The first poster issued for the movie Civil War. (Art: A24)
April 19, 2024 by David Silverberg
Back on Dec. 13, the independent, boutique movie studio A24 released a horrific-looking trailer for a movie called Civil War.
Its premise was that civil war breaks out in the United States between a president and his forces and an insurrectionist opposition. It was impossible to tell from the trailer whether the person portrayed as the president in the movie was supposed to be Joe Biden or Donald Trump or whether the insurrectionists were fighting to Make America Great Again (MAGA) or to preserve democracy.
The movie was released last weekend, on April 12, without the fanfare and the major marketing push that prospective blockbusters command. Nonetheless it earned $25.7 million at the box office on its opening weekend, a record for A24.
It is currently playing in Southwest Florida theaters.
Back in January, after watching the trailer, this author raised the question whether this movie would encourage would-be insurrectionists to take up arms against the government of the United States.
As stated at the time: “Whether pro or anti insurrection—or even anti-American—the most dangerous thing about this movie is that it will encourage those thinking of civil war and political violence to actually take up arms and make this fiction real. People living in deep red, heavily MAGA, gun-saturated places—like Southwest Florida—where there has already been talk of armed revolution, know that the line between fantasy and reality in this matter is already very thin.”
Having seen it, this author can address the question: is this movie likely to incite political violence and armed insurrection?
Rather than the usual domain for a movie review—the artistic, aesthetic and performance aspects—this review will try to answer that question.
But to understand the answer, one needs to know the setting, the characters, and the plot.
Background
Anyone thinking of seeing this movie should know at the outset that in its quest for authenticity it is extremely violent, bloodily graphic, literally gory, incredibly loud and full of profanity. There are a lot of unceremonious executions. It is rated R.
The civil war is already under way as the movie opens. The exact details of the conflict are only sketched out. The president, a man given to hyperbole and exaggeration who wears red ties, is in his (implied) illegitimate third term and has no intention of leaving the office.
“Western forces” consisting of Californian and Texan troops are at war with the federal government as is a “Florida alliance,” which has tried to make headway toward Washington, DC. Both have been beaten back, according to the president, who characterizes them as “secessionist.”
“Some are already calling it the greatest victory in the history of mankind,” he says.
In New York City, an experienced war photographer named Lee Smith, played by Kirsten Dunst, is photographing street protests that end in a bloody explosion, part of the rising tide of violence. Her driver and assistant is Joel, played by Brazilian-born actor, Wagner Moura.
Together they plan to travel to Washington, DC to cover the culmination of the rebellion. But as they talk of going, Sammy, played by Stephen McKinley Henderson, an old, lame New York Times reporter they know, cadges a ride. Also tagging along is Jessie, played by Cailee Spaeny, an aspiring war photographer who idolizes Lee (and who, in the biggest unreality of the entire movie, insists on shooting black and white film!).
So now the stereotypical quartet is complete: a hard-bitten, disillusioned veteran photog who has seen it all; a vaguely Latino sidekick; an ingénue and apprentice; and an old, wise, disabled black character providing special insights, a cliché known as the “magical Negro,” a term invented by director Spike Lee.
The movie could have been titled Four Tropes in a Truck.
No spoiler here: the psychological arc of the story is the maturation and brutal, real-world education of Jessie.
While in real life the road from New York to Washington, DC is pretty straightforward (Interstate 95, anyone?) the situation is such that the characters have to follow a roundabout route through the backroads of Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
This odyssey leads to a series of dystopian episodes that illustrate the disruption, inhumanity and confusion of civil war. (And also allow for filming tight, intimate scenes that don’t cost too much to set up.)
The film culminates in an elaborate, destructive assault on Washington and the White House, whose compound has been surrounded by a high, heavily fortified concrete wall, presumably built at the direction of this president.
Portraying civil war
The term “civil war” has been bandied about a great deal lately, mostly by MAGAs loyal to former President Donald Trump, who has also warned of a “bloodbath” if he’s not returned to office this November.
Naples farmer and grocer Alfie Oakes takes aim in an Aug. 8, 2021 Facebook post stating, “I pray we have election integrity in 2022…. if we don’t we must prepare for the worst! Our second amendment right is specifically to revolt against a a tyrannical government! Prepare for the worst and pray for the best.” (Photo: Facebook)
The people discussing “civil war” as a real possibility don’t appear to have a clue what real “civil war” means. They don’t appear to understand just what a tragedy, a horror, and an apocalypse a civil war constitutes. When Trump discusses a “bloodbath” and his enablers, like Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), defend it, they’re not showing any real comprehension of what happens when a society and nation is viciously ripped apart; when neighbors, family, friends turn on each other—and lose their nearest and dearest at each other’s hands.
To some small degree the movie Civil War conveys this kind of holocaust.
There is one scene where the journalists are stopped by an armed man of indeterminate side. When they say they are Americans like him, he asks: “What kind of Americans?”
“What kind of Americans?” (Image: A24)
Their lives depend on their answers, but there’s no telling what his standards are or what kind of Americans he’s seeking.
This in some small way conveys the horror and mortal uncertainty of a civil war.
To me one of the most tragic and awful depictions in the movie is a battle between uniformed soldiers and US Secret Service agents in the halls of the White House.
To know US Secret Service agents is to know some of the most patriotic, loyal, dedicated, highly-trained servants of this country, many with military backgrounds, people whose lives are on the line daily in the performance of their duties. To see them pitted—even fictionally—against fellow American soldiers really brings home the tragedy and horror of what a “civil war” truly means.
In a sense Civil War serves a constructive role in bringing all this horror this home. But the large number of appalling incidents and images also desensitizes the viewer to the brutality of what’s happening so that by the end, these occurrences are just a matter of course, exactly as Jessie learns to experience them.
This desensitization occurred during America’s real Civil War too. At the very outset northerners were appalled in 1861 by the killing of a single Union officer, Col. Elmer Ellsworth, when he was shot taking down a Confederate flag in Alexandria, Va. He was the first Union soldier to die and his death made headlines. By the end of the conflict in 1865, over 600,000 Americans were dead, their passing just statistics in the newspapers of the time.
Americans received a foretaste of real civil war on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump pitted thousands of his followers against the US Congress and the Capitol Police. American Trumpers beat and battered American police officers doing their duty protecting the American Capitol. Americans attempted to lynch an American Vice President. It is remarkable that only one rioter was shot and that plans to use lethal force against members of Congress did not succeed. It could have been a real bloodbath.
A non-fiction documentary of Jan. 6 could serve as a depiction of a second American civil war instead of the movie’s fictional portrayal.
(And on a personal note: As a journalist I had the privilege during my career of being granted entry to the White House and always approached that mansion with a sense of respect and even awe. It was wrenching to watch even a replica of hallways I had known wrecked in the movie, just as much as it was devastating to watch Capitol corridors I had walked defiled and vandalized on Jan. 6. As though to make things worse, the movie shows the Lincoln Memorial attacked, the same building before whose steps I took my wedding vows on a boat on the Potomac. Every one of these sacred, meaningful sites has now been devastated in fact or in fiction. Next, no doubt, will come the turn of the Supreme Court—and if the justices rule that the Jan. 6 rioters go free from charges of obstructing government, then they deserve what they get when their chambers are invaded and vandalized in their turn.)
The Lincoln Memorial attacked in the movie. (Image: A24)
Does it incite?
Will this movie inspire someone to take up arms and violently try to overthrow the Constitution and the government of the United States?
Probably not—at least from a standing start. However, a person already inclined to use violence might find additional motivation from this movie.
The movie is likely to inspire at least one imitative mass shooting or attack on a soft target like a peaceful gathering or a theater. If that happens, investigators should ask if the perpetrators saw the film and were incited by it.
Almost as damaging as possible incitement is the fact that movie posits lethal violence as a political solution. That is unacceptable in a civil society governed by law. In a society ripped apart by civil war violence is the last solution left but—mercifully—America is not there now, at least to the point of widespread disorder.
That should never be allowed to happen in America. It’s one more reason that the concept of civil war is so abhorrent on so many levels, even in fictional depictions.
Anti-Trump or anti-Union?
It’s clear that the President, played by Nick Offerman, is a portrayal of Donald Trump. MAGAs, however, may see the situation through the lens of President Joe Biden as the overstepping tyrant in the movie, justifying armed resistance.
However, the real political threat portrayed in the movie is the notion of secession from the United States by violent means. After all, the overall political situation in the movie is one of states revolting against a hijacked federal government—although the notion of Florida rising up against Trump or a California-Texas alliance is pretty far-fetched at the moment.
Still, secession is rearing its head again and expressing itself in anti-federal actions, particularly in Florida and Texas.
Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, stated that the movie was “not as implausible as some people would have you believe” and was “pouring gasoline on the fire” of a Texas secessionist movement that has been called “Texit.”
The resistance of the governors of Florida and Texas to federal authority has been called “soft secession” and it is likely to go further. They continue defying federal authority, including that of the Supreme Court.
So the movie revives the idea of a state-based secession movement, an argument that was seemingly settled in 1865.
The sign of secession in the heart of one nation, indivisible: Rioter Kevin Seefried of Delaware carries the Confederate flag into the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In February 2023 Seefried was sentenced to three years in prison for obstruction of an official proceeding and for using that flag to attack Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, who heroically led rioters away from the Senate chamber. (Photo: AFP/Saul Loeb)
Takeaways
To answer the first question any movie review should answer: Should you go see the movie?
If you enjoy extreme violence, gore and chaos, yes. But if you don’t, your life won’t be any worse for skipping it. If you do see it, it’s unlikely to profoundly change your outlook or worldview.
But in a larger sense, and looking more broadly, one hopes this film might serve to dampen down the threats of armed insurrection, violence, bloodbaths and secession.
One can understand what inspired its creation and the desire to produce it. Its producers have every right to present it.
Fortunately, it is not an unmistakable incitement to civil disorder and insurrection. It doesn’t call on viewers to take up arms and go to war.
But neither is it a clear deterrent.
It shows the horrors of civil war and what that would entail at ground level. But it doesn’t convey the full, deep meaning of what civil war would do to America and the full magnitude of the disaster that civil war imposes on any society.
Ultimately, a civil war in America like that portrayed would be a historic tragedy of staggering proportions at every level—globally, nationally and individually.
If the movie inspires anything constructive it should inspire a determination never to have events like those portrayed occur. One would hope it would inspire the people of the United States to reject divisiveness, insurrection, criminality and treason and, out of diversity, forge unity—“E Pluribus Unum,” as America’s first motto stated. It should inspire allegiance to the Constitution and the rule of law and the realization that a common future trumps all allegiance or obedience to any single, violence-spewing, delusional individual.
If not, the movie Civil War might better be titled Putin’s Dream.
A demonstration in favor of women’s reproductive rights at the Collier County, Fla., Courthouse on Oct. 2, 2021. (Photo: Author)
April 10, 2024 by David Silverberg
Imagine, if you will, that it is a few minutes to midnight on Tuesday, April 30, 2024.
In Florida’s towns and cities crowds gather in the darkness on courthouse steps and town squares to mark the imminent implementation of the “Heartbeat Protection Act,” the state’s six-week abortion ban.
At each gathering, speakers address the crowds, many of the women in Handmaid costumes. As the clock nears midnight, the speaker raises a copy of the pamphlet containing the Roe versus Wade decision.
Then, at midnight, the speaker sparks a flame and sets the Supreme Court decision alight, marking the end of a woman’s right to choose in Florida.
A burning copy of the Roe v. Wade decision. (Photo illustration: Slate)
The pamphlet burns quickly. An assistant strikes a bell that mournfully tolls 12 times. The fire dies into darkness. The bell’s sound fades into a solemn moment of silence. It is one minute past midnight, May 1, 2024.
Then spotlights come up and focus on the unscrolling of large banner that has on it the words of Amendment 4:
“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. 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 crowd cheers and waves small flags bearing the words of the amendment that were earlier distributed. They chant: “My body, my choice, my vote, my voice.” And then they march.
The media visuals are spectacular and spread across the state, the nation and the world.
And the battle to pass Amendment 4 is formally joined.
Or perhaps that’s too dramatic and impractical. Maybe anti-choice towns and cities in Florida won’t provide a permit for a midnight gathering or it’s too much to organize on short notice.
Maybe a less complex form of observance is also an option.
Perhaps at midnight on April 30-May 1 supporters of Amendment 4 can open their windows or go outside on their porches, and decks and lanais and simply bang a pot or pan for five minutes to register their protest and alert the world that they are mobilized and ready to work to change Florida’s Constitution.
It’s a common form of protest in countries where people fear retaliation and punishment for their views. There’s even a name for it: “cacerolazo,” a Spanish word derived from “stew pot” (similar to the word “casserole”) and it’s a time honored type of dissent. In recent years it was mostly used in South America to demonstrate against everything from government repression to economic austerity.
Imagine a cacophony of banging pots rising from Florida’s midnight darkness; a protest—and a warning.
Whatever form it takes, the coming into force of Florida’s abortion ban should not go unmarked.
But this year the abortion fight has an interesting wrinkle and it’s one that pro-choice activists should use to the max.
A wrinkle of timing
When the Florida Supreme Court issued its abortion rulings on April 1 it set up an interesting political dynamic.
In one ruling it declared that the six-week abortion ban could go into effect in 30 days. That is scheduled to occur at midnight, May 1.
In another ruling it declared that Amendment 4 legalizing abortion could go on the ballot and be decided on Election Day, Nov. 5.
It is 188 days (6 months and 4 days) between those dates.
During that time Florida women will be stripped of a right to choose that they enjoyed for the previous 50 years under Roe v. Wade. They will feel what it is like to lose a fundamental right, to have a heavy hand descend on their lives and have no recourse or appeal. The media will carry stories like those in the past from Ohio and Indiana or Texas about Florida women who suffer because Florida has outlawed safe, legal abortion.
But that period also provides a powerful incentive for pro-choice advocates to make their case for passing Amendment 4 with the 60 percent majority they need to add it to the Florida Constitution.
It should not be allowed to slip away.
Reactions and implications
There has now been sufficient time to react to the Florida Supreme Court’s rulings and across the board, political analysts and pundits view it as a disaster for Florida Republicans both in the state and quite possibly nationally. A tsunami of commentary is already breaking and will gather force and volume as Election Day draws nearer. (Of note: Early voting begins Oct. 26.)
Still, some voices stand out.
President Joe Biden’s campaign is arguing that the abortion decisions make Florida winnable for Democrats.
“We definitely see Florida in play, and unlike Donald Trump, we have multiple pathways to 270 [Electoral College votes] that we’ve been able to keep open,” Julie Chávez Rodríguez, the campaign manager for the Biden-Harris reelection team, told reporters after the Supreme Court rulings.
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the Florida Democratic candidate for Senate, called the rulings “a game-changer.”
“I think that millions of Floridians regardless of party, we know that this is not a partisan issue, are going to come out to the ballot box and make sure they protect their right to choose and their freedom,” she stated. She has used the rulings to hammer her opponent, Sen. Rick Scott, who supports a national abortion ban.
Florida pundit and Lincoln Project co-founder Rick Wilson, who had a long career as a down and dirty Republican political operative, called the rulings “consequential” in a post titled, “Welcome To Ground Zero: Florida Puts Abortion On The Ballot.”
The amendments, he wrote, “will reshape the race in Florida — particularly down-ballot,” overturning Republican calculations. “This was the last thing they wanted,” he noted.
“Pissed-off women are dangerous women, and the six-week bans on abortion are having a massive political ripple effect in the country,” he wrote. “The Florida Democrats should focus on tightening the GOP’s current 800,000 registration advantage and ramping turnout with women voters.”
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who pushed for the six-week ban when he was running for president and signed it into law, struck back—feebly.
At a press conference in Davie, Fla., on April 4, DeSantis said that Florida voters would reject Amendment 4 and an amendment to legalize recreational marijuana as too radical and “very, very extreme.”
He also expressed a belief that many Florida voters are too ignorant to understand or vote for the amendments.
“I think Florida voters over the past four or five cycles have developed a skepticism on these amendments generally because they’re always written in ways that are confusing,” he said. “You don’t necessarily know what the intent’s going to be. So I think there’s a certain segment of voters, they default. Just vote ‘no’ on these things. Because they know that these things cost tens of millions of dollars to get on.”
Alleged vagueness in the wording was also the argument used by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and her allies when they argued against including Amendment 4 on the ballot before the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court rejected their arguments. “Here, there is no lack of candor or accuracy,” stated the Court’s opinion. “…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.”
(The entire ruling is available for download at the end of this article.)
The rulings also had the effect of forcing Donald Trump, Florida resident and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, to issue a statement to clarify his position on abortion, which he did in a video on April 8. In it he took credit for appointing the US Supreme Court judges who overthrew Roe v. Wade, said that abortion should be left to the states and then declined to either endorse a national ban, as anti-choice activists had hoped, or set a time limit when abortions should be legal.
One view of Trump’s abortion position. (Illustration: M. Wuerker/Politico)
His operative paragraph was: “My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint. The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state. Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be.”
Another cartoonist’s view of Trump’s abortion statement. (Illustration: Andy Marlette)
It was a statement that attempted to have it all ways and it satisfied no one. Today, Wednesday, April 10, while questioned on a tarmac in Atlanta, Ga., Trump said he would not sign a national abortion ban if elected president.
Analysis: A rare moment in time
The timing of both the ban and the amendment present Floridians with an extremely rare political opportunity. Like a slingshot propelling a stone, the ban will give force, momentum and impact to the amendment effort. With the experience of repression, people will know and understand what they’re trying to achieve by passing the amendment.
The momentum is not all on one side, of course. Opponents will know that they have to preserve a ban that’s already in place. But at the moment, there is little evidence of the enthusiasm and determination to match the pro-choice side. However, opponents can be expected to mobilize so the conflict will be intense.
Another positive indicator for amendment advocates is the success of pro-choice measures in previous elections, even in very conservative states.
Wilson noted this in his analysis.
“The Democrats should take lessons from the abortion ballot questions in Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio,” he wrote, referring to recent victories for abortion rights.
“This isn’t simply about abortion qua abortion.
“It’s about the heavy hand of government overreach. It’s about Ron DeSantis deciding when you should know if you’re pregnant. It’s about monitoring women. It’s about turning doctors into criminals.
“The winning formula is out there on this issue. Democrats would be wise to use it. The ads, messages, and strategies in successful models of this issue are more libertarian than you might expect…and draw a percentage of women Republicans and conservative-leaning independents across the line.”
In all, Florida—and other states, like Arizona—are poised for an epic battle over women’s abortion rights, one that will ripple down the ballot and shape the nation.
It’s a rare moment in history, as rare as a solar eclipse.
But unlike an eclipse, its outcome is in the hands of the people on the ground. And in this case, those people can ensure that the sun comes out to once again shine on the Sunshine State.
The solar eclipse of April 8, 2024. (Image: NASA)
Click on the button to download a copy of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling onAmendment 4.
The Paradise Progressive 