by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
The American left accelerated its attack on every precept of civil society this month by arguing that the presumption of innocence, as the leftists would say, "isn't really a thing."  The context for this latest assault is that, in its unquenchable zeal for power, the left is willing to dismiss principles that have guided human interaction for centuries just so they may have a chance at preserving a more liberal court.  Specifically, their latest claim is that Judge Brett Kavanaugh need not be presumed innocent until proven guilty during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee because those hearings are not a trial.  In point of fact, the left's contention, once again, is patently false.
 
The fact is that in every facet of human interaction an individual is presumed to be innocent.  Consider what would happen if this were not the case.  Under such circumstances it would be totally appropriate for one to randomly beat up any person with whom he or she comes into contact because the recipient of the punishment is presumed to be guilty of whatever it is that he is suspected of doing.  For example, if the left's contention that presumed innocence is only true in trials then it would be perfectly appropriate for me to walk up to a man that I presumed to be guilty of sleeping with my wife and beat him up. Or if you want to be more formal about it, it would be perfectly appropriate for me to call the police, merely tell them that the accused had slept with my wife and have the police apply the appropriate statutorily prescribed punishment upon my wife and him for adultery.  
 
Indeed, if it were not for everyone's presumption of innocence in every facet of life, then there would be no room for formal society since we would all be involved in an endless and random maze of revenges and counter-revenges against each other because everyone around us would be presumed guilty of whatever we want; a hopeless and absurd situation indeed.  
 
But such is the world of the left.
 
The fact is, and what the lying left is trying to make us forget, is that everyone around us starts with a presumption of innocence.  If you call your plumber to work on your home, you do not interact with him under the presumption of shoddy workmanship.  You believe he or she will do a good job, or at least is capable of it. If you go to the drugstore, you presume that the pharmacist is going to give you the correct tablets and that the pharmaceutical company placed the correct chemicals in the tablets.  We do this because of the presumption of innocence under which everyone is held consciously, or subconsciously.  
 
To be sure, trial proceedings are much more formal affairs and much different than what takes place in extra-judicial human interactions, but the differences lie not in the presumption of innocence.  The differences lie in how we prove guilt and the safeguards with which to prove it.  In short, there are only two things that vary between the ruminations of a court and public interactions: 1) the evidence we are allowed to consider; and 2) the amount of evidence required in order to arrive at the conclusion.
 
Let us first consider the evidence we are allowed to consider.  In court, particularly in criminal courts, there are a myriad of rules that determine what evidence may be used against the defendant.  The reason for this is that the courts want to only allow the most reliable pieces of evidence into the fray because the consequence of making a wrong decision can potentially be that an innocent woman gets sent to jail. 
 
In the arena of human interaction, anything the individual wishes to consider may be taken into account.  For example, if John's mother tells John that Steve said that his wife, Mary, had been sleeping with Charles, John is free to consider that piece of evidence in passing judgment upon Mary's and Charles’s conducts. But you will never be able to introduce that hearsay comment into a court of law to establish the fact that Mary is sleeping with Charles.  
 
Why the difference?  Well because the consequence of the information laid upon John is potentially to upset him and cause him to act on that information. The same information given to a court can have much broader implications as the court carries with it the power of the state.
 
Then we consider the amount of evidence required to make the point.  Again, in forum of personal interactions, the standard is whatever the recipient wants it to be. . . in other words; anything goes.  In our example, John is free to personally act against his wife based only on the information his mother gave him.  However, if John does that sufficiently frequently, then he will quickly learn the consequences of making false accusations and of running on unsubstantiated or uncorroborated evidence because, sooner rather than later, his information is going to lead him to the wrong conclusions and his life will be thrown into chaos.  
 
In legal proceedings, the amount of evidence required varies.  For example, to begin many proceedings all that may be needed is a scintilla of evidence, or "just the smell of evidence."  So, a person appearing before a committee to say that someone raped someone 35 years prior absent any other evidence may be enough for that committee to look into it, but it is certainly insufficient for the committee to reach any conclusion against the nominee, or take any action against him or her.  
 
Usually, the lowest burden of proof with which to take actions is the more likely than not standard.  Here, the amount of evidence presented would be so strong so as to make an impartial mind conclude that it was more likely than not that the accusation is true, or that the event took place.  I can tell you that absent any other corroborating evidence there is no situation where the mere accusation by one person of an event that took place 35 years earlier would ever reach the more likely than not standard.  Doing so would be equivalent to adopting the presumption of guilt standard, which I laid out at the opening of this article and society could not have ever developed.
 
For a criminal trial, the level of proof would be beyond reasonable doubt, or as legal scholars describe it, at least 95% sure. This is the highest level of proof employed and a burden that is admittedly too strict for either the court of public opinion or a hearing.  
 
 
For a hearing, the more appropriate level is either more likely than not, or a preponderance of the evidence (~80% sure). Either way, the burden of proof is much higher than that required to merely consider an allegation.  
 
It is clear that the stakes in the fight against leftist policies have now increased from the regression to socialism or the intrusion of government onto our civil liberties to a defense of the very foundational steeples of our society.  According to the left, it is now okay for women to divorce their husbands merely because the husbands are Republicans.  It is okay to harass a President merely because he won.  It is okay to call someone guilty and permanently ruin him or her.  And it is okay to equate a vote based on a certain set of facts with a globally broad statement applicable to a whole class of people who have no knowledge or personal association with the established facts upon which the vote is made. 
 
This is the world according to the left.  It is a world permissive of totalitarian dictatorships, a world that allows blacks to be enslaved or mercilessly discriminated against, and a world where justice does not exist except for those who are part of the ruling class.  
 
If this is sounding very close to the realities that existed in Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, and Mao's China, and those called for in Antifa's, Me Too's, and Black Lives Matters' America, that's because it is.  Each of those systems is all too willing to cast away presumptions of innocence, burdens of proof, and evidentiary requirements before imparting upon an individual the full wrath of government.  Let's hope that in today's America, there are still enough of us who are willing to stand up for our civil liberties and for the absolute right to be presumed innocent until and unless we are proven guilty.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 

by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
In 1982, Greg Watson turned in a thesis to his professor at Texas Christian University.  In it, he argued that an unratified constitutional amendment first proposed by Madison as part of the Bill of Rights could still become law. His efforts earned him a C.  Not because of poor writing skills or shoddy workmanship, but because his professor thought his contention was in error.
 
So upset was Watson over his grade that he wrote every state legislator in the country about having his or her state ratify Madison's constitutional amendment.  The letter caught the attention of a state legislator in Maine who moved it in his state, and shortly thereafter, Maine became the first state in modern American history to ratify one of James Madison's amendments.  Others followed, and by 1992, the Twenty Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting congressional salaries from being altered without an intervening election became law, just as Watson had predicted.
 
Watson's story is a wonderful example of the greatness of the power of one.  It is a testament of what happens when a single individual, motivated by the vision of new reality, mobilizes and convinces others that his is the correct way to proceed.  
 
Yes, Senator Jeff Flake moved a mountain on Friday, or at least the United States Senate, when he announced that he would be voting Judge Kavanaugh out of committee but demanding an FBI investigation be performed prior to his casting a favorable vote at the floor of the Senate. His actions, however, did not rise to the level of a Watsonian performance.
 
Flake's motivation was based on fear and submission to intimidation tactics, or personal gain, not the promotion of a unique insight.  On Friday morning, shortly after announcing that he would be voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh, Flake was accosted by a group of rabid feminists who reproachfully and illogically insisted that a vote for Kavanaugh was equivalent to an assertion by Flake of his disbelief of those women's stories regarding their own alleged sexual assaults.  
 
Of course, the claim of any association between Jeff Flake's vote on the confirmation of a competent judge and any opinion on a totally unrelated sexual assault upon another party is patently absurd. And the fact that a senator would be allowed to be accosted by a group of very aggressive advocates, regardless of the issue being espoused, within the capitol grounds is equally as unbelievable. But whatever the pressures upon Flake to capitulate, he did, and he did so in deference to fear, guilt, or personal ambition.  
 
Moreover, the contention that Democrats are searching for some greater truth or guidance before making their decision is untenable. Between Senator Feinstein's near month long suppression of an anonymous complaint, to the concealment of the complaint from the nominee, to the circus environment the Democrat caucus developed during the nomination process, to the numerous, ridiculous comments made by individual senators in the Judiciary Committee during and after the proceedings, it is evident that theirs was an all out effort to embarrass and subvert the nominee.  The search for truth does not figure into the Democrats' plan.
 
But still, one may ask, what's the harm in just doing yet another FBI investigation?  If he's innocent as he says he is, then what's the harm?  The questions drip with hypocrisy in the face of the damage that has already transpired.  All that this delay is causing is to allow more time for the forces of evil in this country to continue their unabashed and shameless assault on a nominee with an impeccable record of service to his country, his family, and his community.  
 
No, despite what the media is saying, Dr. Christine Blaisey Ford is not a credible witness.  Yes, her testimony was compelling, and it was emotional, but there were more holes in it than in a block of Swiss cheese, and that's without the benefit of a cross-examination.  Honestly, if Dr. Ford, who is no psychologist despite her claim, were subjected to a cross examination, I believe she would not have even been able to finish her testimony.  
 
Additionally, there is absolutely no good that will come from an FBI probe.  It is an investigation based on events that allegedly took place thirty-five years earlier, brought by a seriously flawed informant with ulterior motives, without time certain, nor location, and where there is no possibility for the collection of forensic or physical evidence to support or dispel the allegation.  The FBI's efforts are dead before they even started.
 
Clearly, the only thing the delay will accomplish is to allow more time for the further salacious destruction of Judge Kavanaugh's reputation and the degradation of the Senate by a bunch of reckless Senate Democrats. And it will allow more time for those nefarious detractors to conjure up more false stories about the judge and to further throw the process into disarray.  
 
Nor will the further protraction do anything to heal the country, nor give comfort to those who would otherwise not have voted for the Judge.  There is no Senate Democrat who will suddenly change his or her mind merely because of an inconclusive FBI investigation.  Just the opposite.  When the FBI investigation fails to find anything new, the only thing that will come of it is the opportunity for Kavanaugh's opponents to criticize the investigation for not finding anything!
 
No, Jeff Flake offered no improvement upon the horrible situation in which this country finds itself.  Unlike Greg Watson who was able to bring insight and wisdom to light, all Flake accomplished was the opportunity for the Senate and the nomination process to sink to new lows with ne'er an opportunity for something good to come out of this mess.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 

by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Today, I saw the most disgusting display of political gamesmanship ever, if it can be called that.  A full-fledged attack on a man's character, his past, and even his soul. The display brought to mind those videos of frenzied sharks opportunistically swiping bites at their maimed prey.  And in this case, the feeding frenzy was allowed to continue by a judicial nominee that, although impassioned by anger, frustration, and shear exhaustion, was too meek and respectful to abandon his temperament and call out the 800-pound gorilla in the room during the question and answer portion of his appearance: cheap partisan politics.
 
But when the smoke cleared, the Senate Judiciary Committee shed no new light upon the events from thirty-five years ago, and the only thing that lay in tatters was the reputation of the United States Senate. 
 
Thank you, Senate Democrats.  
 
There were a number of goals the Senate Democrats pursued today.  The first was to put on display a credible witness with a credible story against a judicial nominee.  That witness was Dr. Christine Blaisey Ford, a Palo Alto professor who claimed that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when he was 17 years old.  What we saw was a meek woman with a weak voice and sheepish delivery who seemed to conveniently forget the most important and significant of details.  Ford's demeanor was simply too passive for a Ph.D professor.  
 
And then there were the inconsistencies. First, the progression of the events had to be delayed because of Ford's fear of flying, yet she flew into Washington for the hearing.  
 
Then we heard Ford actually flew to all sorts of places.  To Delaware to be with her family.  To Polynesia for personal pursuits. To Costa Rica.  To Hawaii.  And she flew not for life altering important events, but for pleasure!
 
And then we learned that the neural receptors in Ford's hippocampus were predisposed to her developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the events that took place 35 years ago.  But when asked if there had been any possible environmental stressors that could have deteriorated her condition, she said there were none.  Nothing else in her life had ever caused her any stress.  Quite simply an incredible assertion.
 
And then a little pearl.  She would have been able to do the hearing earlier if the Senate had offered to go to her.  
 
But they did!  And when this was pointed out, her attorney was quick to object.
 
From before the hearing, we knew she couldn't place the house.  But during the heating we learned that the house where the events took place was about a 15 minute drive from her home.  So after establishing that she was driven there and back, she still couldn't remember who drove her to the party and back. 
 
Wouldn't you think that the person who had driven her home from that party would have driven an absolutely mortified 15-year-old home?   No 15-year-old can bluff so well so as to hide her emotions from the person driving her home that night, and even if she could, Ford should have been able to tell us what she did in preparation for what was likely the longest trip home of her life.  How had she maintained her composure? Did she cry prior to getting in the car?  How did she hide her emotions from her parents that night?  
 
But there was none of that. 
 
Ford also did not know who paid for the polygraph test, or who was paying for her attorneys.
 
When faced with a prosecuting attorney that treated her with kid gloves under five minute time constraints, none of the tough questions were asked.  But even at this point, something seemed off about her testimony.  For me, I just kept going back to not having ever seen a Ph.D. professor act so meekly.
 
Then came Judge Kavanaugh.  Pardon my vernacular, but he was pissed, as upset as I have ever seen anyone at a legislative hearing. He was indignant.  He was unwavering in his denial that the events described absolutely never happened.  And the debacle of the Democrats' cheap scam began to unravel.  
 
Which brings us to the Democrats' second goal; delay the hearing at all costs through a call for another FBI investigation.  
 
The most obnoxious individual in promoting this agenda was Senator Dick Durbin who kept insisting that Kavanaugh turn to the White House council, right there and then, and demand than an FBI hearing take place.  Despite the intense, and unprofessional display from Durbin, Kavanaugh did not take the bait, recurrently exclaiming that he would do whatever the Committee wanted, but essentially leaving it to the Committee to call for an investigation.  
 
And that's when a rejuvenated and impassioned Lindsey Graham spoke.  He was the first Republican Senator to break ranks with the optional protocol the caucus had set up for itself of employing the services of an Arizona prosecuting attorney to ask the questions.  Instead, Graham took the microphone himself and resoundingly called the proceedings a sham. His was a performance so riveting, so emotional, so raw and filled with honesty that it made Al Pacino's performance in And Justice For All, look like child's play.  The Democrats don't want an investigation, Graham exclaimed. If they did, they wouldn't have sat on Ford's complaint for weeks.  
 
From Graham and others we learned that by the time Kavanaugh met with Feinstein, her staff and she had already assisted Ford in obtaining a lawyer, and she mentioned nothing to Kavanaugh at their private meeting!  Nor did she say anything at the time of the hearing.  Feinstein's deceitful performance in her handling of this case was so despicable, that it brought the spurious call for an FBI investigation to a halt.
 
Additionally, in a case where there is nothing to pursue, no forensic evidence, no physical evidence, no DNA, no pictures, and no iron-clad testimonies, there is absolutely nothing the FBI could add.  
 
How about making Kavanaugh look like a raging alcoholic?  Here is where Kavanaugh was at his shakiest because he drank as a minor, ("everyone did") and he liked beer and claimed to still like beer.  He seemed a little frazzled as he asked the Senators, "Don't you like beer, Senator?"  To be sure, it's what many wished to tell these arrogant senators, but it got the judge into the mud a little bit too much.  
 
But once again, the Democrats stole defeat from the jaws of victory as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse broke one of the sacred rules of public interrogation, he asked questions of his witness to which he did not previously know the answer.  Whitehouse thought he would be cute and display a huge blowup of Kavanaugh's high school yearbook page, and thinking that the cryptic entries dealt with sexual activity, sought to pursue them.
 
What does "Renate alumnius" mean?
 
No, it did not mean that Kavanaugh had claimed to have sexual relations with Renata.  (Here's where Kavanaugh could have said, "No, Senator, I have no control over what your perverted brain may be thinking, but this reference is not to sexual activity," but he didn't.)
 
What does "Ralph" in "Beach Week Ralph Club" mean, and doesn't that mean that you were a problem drinker? 
 
Senator, it means vomiting, and no, I was not a problem drinker.  
 
And then Whitehouse tried to cross the bridge too far.  
 
And what about the word "boofed"?
 
Senator, it means flatulence.  We were 16.  We thought it was funny.
 
Everyone laughed.  And all of a sudden, the absurdity of a Senator dissecting the senior page of a judicial nominee became painfully clear.  And the Democrats' efforts at discrediting the nominee came to an end.
 
In the end, we finished where we started. If anything, Kavanaugh appeared stronger than before the hearing.   Ford looked weaker and less credible.  And the Me Too movement continued its descent into the surreal.  
 
So what did we gain from all of this?
 
Substantively, we gained nothing.  But we got further confirmation of the disarray we would live in if this crop of Democrats ran the show.  We got a taste of what its like when procedural rules are ignored and decorum abandoned.  We learned how evil the left can be if left to its own devices.  And once again, we learned of the importance of maintaining a man's innocence until and unless there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate his guilt.
 
Today, I witnessed a horrible display of incivility and disrespect to the honor and life of another.  I have nothing to say about Dr. Ford, as I do not understand what she was thinking and what motivated her to go this far after 35 years without any corroborating evidence; as a matter of fact, she brought only the opposite. 
 
But I did see the attempted destruction of the United States Senate by those who reside within it.  It was a despicable display that in the end, left our Republic that much weaker.  
 
Thanks again, Senate Democrats.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

 by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On October 5, 2018, the Norwegian Nobel Committee will be announcing this year's recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.  If there is any remaining intellectual honesty in the Committee, the next Nobel Peace Prize Laureate should be President Donald J. Trump.  
 
To be sure, he would be an unconventional choice, but Donald J. Trump is an unconventional man, and we are living in an historical pinnacle of unconventionality.  
 
So, why does President Trump merit the prize? 
 
First, he has consistently delivered a vision for the world's future centered upon the concepts of individual freedoms, democracy, patriotism, and the supremacy of the nation state.   He has told the community of nations that unlike the message delivered by his predecessors, it's okay for each nation to represent its own interests, while accepting that the United States will be acting with the same premise.  But even as he delivers this message, he cautions about the necessity of adherence to the Thomistic presumption that a nation's leader, indeed the nation itself, exists for the purposes of promoting the rights of its citizens and loses its right to remain in power if it abandons the rights of the people they represent. 
 
Consequently, President Trump called out Venezuela for its socialistic policies that he says have bankrupted that state and oppressed its people.  He also called out Iran and its tyrannical tendencies, not only with regard to its citizens, but also as they relate to its regional neighbors.  As such, he has withdrawn the United States from the Iran deal that only served to enrich Iran and strengthen its support of rogue regimes and terrorist organizations. Additionally, Trump has unequivocally identified the absolute unacceptability of allowing Iran, a regime that routinely chants death to Americans and calls for the annihilation of Israel, to possess a nuclear weapon and has mobilized nations to pressure the regime into abandoning the program.
 
Within the United Nations, he has insisted that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights be reformed and has called for ending the practice of allowing nations that do not respect the fundamental rights of man from being allowed access to world trade. 
 
Except for those celebrating magniloquence and rhetoric, no award should be given without the actions to merit them.  So, let's look at what President Trump has accomplished. 
 
President Trump's first visit abroad included Saudi Arabia, Israel, Rome, Brussels, and Sicily on the same trip, sending a symbol of unification and leadership unmatched since Kissinger's visit to China and Reagan's visit to Berlin.
 
On the humanitarian front, on July 7, 2017, during a working session of the G20 summit of world leaders, President Trump promised $639 million in humanitarian aid for Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria, and Yemen (yes, Yemen). 
 
In the Middle East, he procured the commitment from the region's nations, so that they, for the first time, worked seriously with the United States to end terrorism. Their concerted efforts at ridding the world of this cancer was instrumental to defeating ISIS, a feat not possible except for the motivational and leadership efforts of one Donald J. Trump. These same countries have now pledged to provide $2 billion in humanitarian aid for Yemen.
 
In Iran, the President has stopped the flow of billions of dollars to the regime and is working with the international community to increase the pressure with the aim of changing Iran's hostile and destructive behaviors. 
 
But perhaps North Korea is where the President's influence has been most effective.  For the first time, denuclearization is a real, albeit still difficult, possibility.  The world took note when the President met with Kim Jong-Un and, amazingly, offered him the chance to have a look at the inside of the Presidential limousine.  Who can forget Kim Jong-Un's joyful reaction to that spontaneous and unscripted moment?  As a result, Rocket Man stopped shooting rockets, American remains are being returned, and hostages have been released (this time in better conditions than being on the brink of death).
 
The only American leader to have the courage to move the American embassy to Jerusalem in compliance with Israel's desires is Donald J Trump.  He did it as promised, and he did it despite the protestations from countless others. In the end, despite the unrelenting pressure against him, the mission was accomplished and the threatened apocalypse never happened.
 
Yes, President Trump's style is confrontational, and he continuously deploys hard-hitting rhetoric laced with unapologetic stances.  Almost incomprehensibly, he has been willing to take the world to the brink of war with the aim of achieving of a lasting peace; and as he likes to say, he has won and continues to win in so doing.  
 
Although the left is busy criticizing him, maligning him, and even laughing at him, President Trump's many accomplishments at making the world a safer place in a mere two years has really been nothing short of remarkable.  So, we are left with one question for the Norwegian Nobel Committee: what person has accomplished more than Donald J. Trump to improve man's situation and foster peace on earth in the recent past?  
 
As difficult as it may be for some to admit. The answer is no one.   
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Rightly, Americans are worried about the use of dark money in our election process, money that flows from organization to organization (committees), without identification as to the source, and used for the purposes of supporting candidates or promoting certain campaigns.
 
Americans are also worried about the possibility of foreign governments, most notably the Russians, tampering with our election process. 
 
But in August, without the knowledge of the overwhelming number of Americans, the federal judiciary skewed the flow of funds to some election campaigns while sparing others without forewarning, and with significant effects on the outcome of primary elections like the ones in Florida. So while some Americans worry about Russian meddling, a clearer case of election tampering from inside the United Sates just occurred.
 
The case, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, et al, arose out of an incident in Tampa, Florida, involving none other than Karl Rove. Apparently, at a fundraiser sponsored by Crossroads GPS, Rove made an offer.  He told those in attendance that an "anonymous donor" had offered to match up to $3 million in contributions to whatever contributions they made that night.  The offer resulted in an extra $1.3 million being raised.  
 
Shortly thereafter, another organization, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, D.C. (CREW) filed a complaint claiming that Crossroads GPS had failed to disclose the identity of those who had contributed to the event.  Their logic was that the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) required that persons disclose their identities when contributing to an organization intended to affect the outcome of an election.  The Federal Elections Commission had interpreted the statute to mean that the identities of the persons needed only to be disclosed when they were made in support of specific independent expenditures.  In other words, if the donor was only intending to support the overall efforts of the organization, then no disclosure needed to be made, but when the same donor contributed to the same organization with specific instructions that such funds be used to support a specific candidate the identity would need to be revealed.
 
In Karl Rove's case, the anonymous donor requested that the money go towards the support of the Republican challenger in the 2012 Ohio Senate race without specifying how the funds should be spent. For 38 years and 19 prior elections, the law had been interpreted in such a manner that those kinds of generalized instructions would not require the disclosure of the donor.  
 
The complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission and in 2014, while acknowledging issues regarding the proper interpretation of FECA, the Commission tossed out the case because, in its opinion, the regulation did not require such a disclosure.  The Commission was concerned that interpreting the law in the manner CREW was requesting would allow for a significantly more expansive interpretation of the situations by which donors' identities needed to be disclosed.  
 
About four years later, the case reached the federal trial court where Judge Beryl A. Howell, an Obama appointee, ruled, on August 3, 2018, that the Commission's rule must be vacated because, in the court's opinion, CREW's interpretation was a more proper one.  Howell recognized that this new interpretation could have a "chaotic" effect on the upcoming elections and therefore stayed her order for 45 days while the Commission revised its rule.  
 
Immediately, Political Action Committees (PACs) across the country reacted with fear as the rules under which they were accustomed to working were being pulled out from underneath them, and they risked being forced to disclose the identity of their donors.  Funding towards campaigns all over the country halted as the PACs figured out what the ruling meant and its significance to their donors' privacy concerns.
 
In Florida, the effect was profound.  The Florida primary was scheduled for August 28, 2018, just 21 days later with early voting schedules beginning about ten days earlier.  In accordance with McCain Feingold, candidates were busy spending their hard dollars as they jockeyed for position in the arena of public opinion.  These candidates were also prohibited from communicating with the PACs that had issued commitments on their behalf, so they could not ascertain why the independent expenditures that they thought were coming by way of political ads, mailers, and fliers never appeared. What's worse, those PACs whose contributors were not concerned about the protection of their identities continued to spend without a care for the same judicial ruling that was paralyzing their competitors.  
 
In the meantime, the Federal Elections Commission refused to change its rule despite the court's order since it was confident that the case would be overturned on appeal.  
 
By August 24, with the Florida primary elections a mere four days away and the ruling disparately advantaging certain candidates over others, Crossroads GPS asked the Circuit Court of Appeals for an extension on the stay of Howell's order, but the appellate court refused.
 
On August 28, the Florida primary elections were held.  The damage had been done, and the court had, either unwittingly or purposely, irreversibly affected the public's opinions of the various candidates throughout the state, and successfully interfered with the election process and its outcomes.  
 
And so it was that an event taking place 6 years earlier impacted the outcomes of countless races in various states, but especially Florida, under the guise of being an administrative emergency.  
 
It would not be until September 15, 2018, two weeks after the conclusion of Florida's primary elections, that the appellate court would issue a ruling upholding the lower court's actions.  
 
Too late to affect the Florida primaries, but still hoping to rectify the situation, Crossroads GPS asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.  On September 16, 2018, Chief Justice Roberts, acting alone, ordered that the rule remain in effect pending further orders, effectively reversing the rulings of the lower courts.  But two days later, he reversed himself, apparently with the participation of the rest of the Court.
 
What does this mean to election finance laws? At least for now, it means more disclosures of federal campaigns donors.  Of course, actions calling for greater transparency are helpful towards ensuring an open elections process, but it will also have a chilling effect of political speech, particularly when the status of the law is in a state of flux. The great injustice here is that a monumental shift in the interpretation of our nation's election finance laws was allowed to happen weeks before an election and three months prior to the midterms.  
 
In other words, who needs the Russians to successfully meddle in our elections process when the courts can do it for us?
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.

by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
The New Yorker Magazine released an article on Sunday detailing another sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. This one involves Deborah Ramirez, a Yale student, who claims to have been at a dorm party where Judge Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself to her circa 1983.  According to her present recollection of the events, at one point she pushed an exposed Kavanaugh away, coming into contact with his privates and causing her to be "embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated."
 
Once again, the story was not shared with any others until now.  Once again, inconsistencies abound, most notably that Ramirez initially told The New Yorker she could not recall the identity of the young man who had engaged in the despicable behavior, but after six days of "assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney" she was able to recall that it was Kavanaugh and now says that she clearly remembers Kavanaugh's face as he stood before her exposed and moving his pelvis.
 
Other similarities include the recollections of some of Ramirez's close friends stating that she had never mentioned this event to them, and the presence of friends of Kavanaugh and Ramirez's who aver that Kavanaugh had never engaged in this sort of activity, nor would he ever.  
 
But there are also differences.  In this story, there are those who, although unable to ascertain whether Kavanaugh was indeed involved, vaguely recalled rumors of drunk parties involving fake penises and the harassment of partying, intoxicated female students.  Some even claim that Brett Kavanaugh's name had been tossed around as being involved in these parties, although not specifically the one in question. Additionally, Ramirez says there were others present, although she asked The New Yorker not to publish their names.
 
Additionally, now there comes word of other allegations, including one by the gold standard of unbridled professional ethics, Michael Avenatti, known recently for his representation of Stormy Daniels. Avenatti claims to have a client with credible allegations against Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's former alcoholic friend who has previously stood by the judge's integrity. Additionally, and predictably, The New Yorker has interviewed women willing to discredit anything that Mr. Judge has said regarding unscrupulous behavior in high school.  
 
But perhaps most disturbingly is that both accusers are Democrats who have brought their stories to Democratic members of Congress, are represented by lawyers who are women's right activists, and have made their allegations, after decades of silence, late in the eleventh hour of a nomination process that promises to tip the scales of the Court in the direction of conservatives.  This in light of a decades long pattern of Democrats utterly destroying conservative nominees (see Judge Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas).  
 
It is this latter pattern that is most disturbing of all because by engaging in this utterly salacious activity, the Democrats have finally figured out a method by which any appointment process can be completely taken down so long as there is no shame, no limit to the level of disgustingness in which they engage, and most importantly, as long as there is a willingness to purposely ignore any respect for procedure. 
 
Make no mistake, we have now witnessed the death of the Senate nomination process, and with it a great intrusion into the respect for due process in the United States.  
 
Thank you very much Senate Democrats and American liberals.  
 
Essentially what has been predicted by others and me is actually happening.  The Democrats have now unlocked a method by which (if allowed to continue) to destroy the nomination process.  It goes like this: if there is an impeccable candidate, all you have to do is slime him to death (yes, I am carefully selecting a gender pronoun) with unprovable sexual allegations from decades past and deliver them relentlessly until the process collapses under the weight of false accusations.  This technique will continue to be deployed upon Brett Kavanaugh and upon any candidate (more easily male) that the liberals do not like.   
 
The country simply cannot survive under the weight of this shameless and unethical behavior.  
 
Once again, like every one of you, I do not know whether Kavanaugh engaged in these activities, or whether this is pure and utter malicious nonsense, but as I see it there are only three ways to proceed. 
 
First, Kavanaugh can withdraw himself from consideration calling himself too much of a distraction.  Unfortunately for him, if the judge feels he has a role to play in affecting public policy and preventing a horrible precedent from taking place, he will not allow himself to do that.  
 
Second, the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman can delay the confirmation hearing while it continues to investigate.  Such an action promises to collapse the process under its own weight as the relentless, malicious, and possibly fabricated stream of accusations continue to flow, delaying the process ad infinitum.
 
Finally, the Senate can discontinue all investigations in the matter and immediately move for a confirmation vote.  This is the preferred approach as it is the only route that can counteract this pattern.  If Kavanaugh is lying, which I suspect he is not, then he will still be subject to the most caustic and vitriolic impeachment process ever.  He will go down in history as one of the most reviled names in the Supreme Court, second only to Roger Taney, the author of the Dred Scott decision.  
 
The Majority Leader of the Senate should sit down in private with the judge and have this conversation with him prior to proceeding, and if Kavanaugh elects to move forward, it will be in full knowledge of the fate that awaits him and our nation if he is not sure of the absolute certainty of the falsity of the claims against him.  
 
In my opinion, of the three options, only the first and the last options are viable.  Which is better is solely in the hands of Judge Kavanaugh and the nature of his character and integrity.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 

by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Early Saturday, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Judge Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, reached a tentative agreement about an appearance before it.  The details of the agreement have not been released, except that the hearing would be held on Thursday.  Although it has been said that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has laid out terms unfair to Blaisey Ford and insensitive to the plight of women, in reality the truth of the matter cannot be sought without these conditions, and Blaisey Ford should welcome Grassley's conditions as it will help to ensure her credibility; provided of course, she is being honest. 
 
First, it is imperative that Blasey Ford speak under oath.  The charge against Judge Kavanaugh is extremely serious, about as serious as it gets. Thus every effort must be made to ascertain the veracity of the information provided.  Recall there is no corroborating evidence, no witnesses having first hand knowledge of the situation (or second hand for that matter), no forensic evidence, and no physical evidence.  In short, this case comes down to the strength of Blasey Ford's word against that of Judge Kavanaugh's, making it crucial that the veracity of Blasey Ford's comments be established.  
 
Placing Blasey Ford under oath is the only way society has to help guarantee the veracity of her testimony.  Without the weight of an oath, Blasey Ford would be free to say anything she wants without legal consequences.  Her testimony could be a complete work of fiction, and no one would know any better, nor would there be any legal ramifications to her having delivered it.  
 
But when Blasey Ford is placed under oath, she is legally ascertaining the information she gives is true to the point of being subject to perjury should she fail to tell the truth.  Although, as a lawyer, I advise anyone to not voluntarily place himself or herself under oath (even when that person is innocent) here Blasey Ford must place herself under oath if she is to be believed.  
 
Blasey Ford is not under investigation, so no charges should be placed against her so long as she tells the truth.  On the contrary, she is calling for an investigation of another under circumstances where no other evidence exists.  She must, therefore, deliver her testimony under oath if her charges are to stick.  The protections for her lie in the limitations of the scope of the inquiry, the topics to be covered.  
 
All topics and subtopics regarding the Kavanaugh allegations must be on the table, inclusive of any social media posts, whether they be favorable or unfavorable.  Obviously, it would be reasonable to demand that no other topics, such as Blaisey Ford's finances, or matters that would subject her to possible litigation in other arenas, be examined, as she ought not be placed in a situation where she self-incriminates.  But, if Blaisey Ford's accusations are sincere, then Blasey Ford should welcome the opportunity to tell her story under oath rather than resist it.  For this reason, it would also be prudent for Blaisey Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, to be present at the hearing so she may object to inappropriate questions.  Although Chair Grassley would be the ultimate arbiter of whether the question stands or not, Blaisey Ford ought to be able to refuse to answer, the consequence of her doing so in the face of a valid question is the undermining of her credibility.
 
Grassley's second requirement is that Blasey Ford deliver her testimony first.  This is as important as speaking under oath, and it is the only logical sequence of events if we are to assume that Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty.  Absent such a chronological sequence the judge has no concrete understanding of the charges before him and would be unable to appropriately defend himself.  
 
And the accusation ought to be made before Judge Kavanaugh.  This is not an intimidation tactic, nor is it merely a hypothetical issue.  Being required to appear before the person one is accusing serves as an added check upon the veracity of the testimony as it is much more difficult, at least for many of us, to falsely accuse someone when doing so in the accused's presence.  
 
Finally, the opportunity for questioning by the members of the tribunal is absolutely essential.  In law, the most effective tool in deciphering the truth of the matter asserted is the opportunity to cross-examine a witness; under oath!  Yes, in the Senate Judiciary Committee there is no provision for a real cross examination, but the inquiries of the full members of the Committee, many of whom are lawyers, should at least partly make up for that and ought to be effective at revealing any inconsistencies, if any, in Kavanaugh's and Blasey Ford's testimonies. It is impossible to tease out the facts without it.  
 
Yes, it is important that Dr. Blasey Ford be heard. However, it is even more important that the truth be ascertained.  Such a goal, the only one that matters, may only be accomplished if Chair Grassley insists on the conduct of a hearing in a manner designed to elicit the truth.  Senator Grassley ought to stick to his guns on these provisions, and Dr. Blasey Ford ought to welcome them.  Otherwise, better not to hold the hearing at all.  
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.

by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On September 20, 2017, one of the most cataclysmic natural events ever to affect the United States or its territories struck Puerto Rico with relentless fury.  It was a hurricane like no other, organized into a perfect eye and packing sustained winds of over 155 miles per hour.  The assault lasted the greater part of the day, destroying the island's infrastructure and leaving 80,000 people without power.  
 
When all was said and done, the damage to the island and its residents was virtually incomprehensible.  Roads were impenetrable.  Homes were uninhabitable.  There was no water to drink, and food was unobtainable.  But amazingly, only 16 people perished.  By December, that number was increased to 64, still a very fortuitous count. 
 
The devastation, predictably led to an egress of Puerto Rico's inhabitants, and the population dropped from approximately 3,327,917 to 3,048,173 inhabitants.  Many emigrated to Florida, changing its demographics, perhaps permanently.  
 
The recovery and rescue efforts also faced seemingly insurmountable challenges.  An island situated far from the Continental 48, delivery of supplies and assistance was hampered.  Many of the materials were brought in by boat, which had prepositioned themselves within striking distance of the island even before the hurricane hit.   Even after the supply ships arrived, delivery of those assets inland was impossible by vehicular traffic, and helicopters were employed.  Unlike Hurricanes Harvey and Irma immediately preceding María, there were some significant setbacks to the recovery efforts in Puerto Rico, but thankfully, at least at the beginning, massive loss of life did not appear to be one of them.
 
Then, in May, 2018, a Harvard study reported that the loss of life from Hurricane María was actually 4,645.  Many met the estimate with disbelief.  How can the number of dead rise from 64 to over 4000 without any prior indication? And if 4,645 people had perished from Hurricane María, where were all the bodies?
 
The Harvard researchers admitted that their study was flawed, as its methods were rudimentary and primarily based on surveys.  Although it received some attention, the study had a limited impact.
 
The Puerto Rican government commissioned another study, this one through George Washington University.  The study was designed to look at three things: 1) "assess the excess total mortality adjusting for demographic variables and seasonality. . . "; 2) evaluate the mortality reporting methods employed by the authorities and make recommendations for improvement; and 3) assess crisis and mortality communications plans and actions.   
 
The George Washington University report was more involved, and reported that 2,975 people perished as a result of Hurricane María. Although the study made observations about the other issues for which it was commissioned, for obvious reasons, it is the first goal with which we will concern ourselves, but, as will become evident, the mortality reporting methods reviewed in the second goal will play prominently.
 
The reality is that we will never know how many people died in Puerto Rico as a result of Hurricane María.  For many, based on how they perceive the question, the most accurate number is 64.  But the reality cuts much deeper. Hurricane María initiated a series of devastating events that did not end when the winds died.  They were events that went far beyond supplies and getting assistance to those in need.  The events dealt with the destruction of a society's infrastructure, with those things that people depend on to live; things like roads, healthcare, communications, environmental controls, and transportation. 
 
For Puerto Rico, the devastation was colossal, changing society for a protracted period of time, if not forever.  
 
And it really was not Trump's fault, or anybody else's.  What Puerto Rico endured was an existential threat that tore through every societal fiber.  
 
There are many lessons to be learned from Puerto Rico.  Yes, many of them have to do with hurricane preparedness, recovery efforts and rescue operations.  But many others deal with issues much greater than those.  They deal with what it means to have a functional society and what it means to have systems in place upon which we all depend.  In short, the Puerto Rican experience teaches us about what it means to be a human being in a complex and interdependent society, and it's high time the media, the politicians, and even our own neighbors, stop our bickering and begin the process of learning from them,  Otherwise all those deaths, however many they truly were, would have been in vain.
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

 by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
Yesterday, The Federalist Pages reported on the Senate Judiciary Committee's plans to hold hearings regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation on Monday.  As reported, Judge Kavanaugh is eager to answer these allegations and speak to their falsities.  
 
Now, in a not-so-unexpected twist, the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, through her attorney, has communicated to the Judiciary Committee that she will not appear unless an independent FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh is undertaken.  
 
Blasey's request is complete and utter nonsense.  
 
First, there is no crime for the FBI to criminally investigate as the statute of limitations has long run out.  Second, the FBI has already conducted its investigation of Judge Kavanaugh in support of the hearings.  For the FBI to go back and investigate this allegation is a wasteful exercise in futility, particularly in light of there being no prospects for criminal sanctions.  
 
Third, Blasey is coming forward, as a citizen, with information she feels is necessary for the Committee to consider.  As such, it is up to the Committee to consider her testimony, at its discretion, based on the credibility and relevance of the information cited.  It is certainly not up to Blasey to dictate the terms by which the Committee reviews her information.  Once she provides her information, the Committee would then act in whatever manner it felt appropriate.
 
Fortunately, thus far, Chairman Chuck Grassley has reassured the public and Dr. Blasey that the Committee will hold a hearing to consider her testimony on Monday, September 24; a hearing to be held publicly or privately, however Blasey likes.  Chair Grassley should not deviate from that position.  
 
At this point two things are becoming increasingly evident.  First, the charges Dr. Blasey is bringing against Judge Kavanaugh are looking like a sham designed only to disrupt the progression of the confirmation process; a process that appears to be otherwise unavoidable.  Second, the Democrats are demonstrating their desperation in their quest to delay the confirmation of a perfectly qualified candidate for the Supreme Court.  And third, this is yet another example of the gross disregard the Democrats will demonstrate to the sanctity of the law and the Republic if they ever regain power.  
 
The time has come for the Republicans to stick to their guns and demand adherence to procedure and decorum.  First, it must continue with its plans to have Blasey testify on Monday.   If Blasey does not do so, then the Senate must immediately move for a vote on confirmation on Tuesday.  Adhering to this plan will result in the confirmation of a conservative judge to the Supreme Court in time for the upcoming judicial session.  More importantly, moving in this manner will help preserve what little respect there remains for the institutions that make up our Republic; institutions that today's Democrats are all too eager to destroy.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 

by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
On September 4, The Federalist Pagesreportedon the three-ring circus into which the Senate Democrats and protesters had turned the confirmation process for Supreme Court Nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  Many reeled in disgust as they witnessed the degrading antics from the left and their destructive effects upon the confirmation hearing.  And many more were happy the fiasco had ended with the adjournment of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  
 
But then the unthinkable happened.  After the conclusion of the hearing, the place where issues regarding the integrity and background of a judicial nominee are supposed to be vetted, Senator Diane Feinstein told the press that she was in possession of information from an anonymous source implicating Judge Kavanaugh in a sexual assault case while he was in high school.  Senator Feinstein then said she had turned over the allegations to the FBI for further investigation while she maintained the anonymity of the accuser.  
 
Bear in mind that Judge Kavanaugh is a man with impeccable credentials; a man that has served in public office for decades and has gone through at least four confirmation processes and six FBI investigations without a single implication of impropriety.  And also consider that Senator Feinstein was in possession of the information she had just divulged for about three months, yet she kept it hidden from the FBI, from the President, and from the Judiciary Committee until after the conclusion of the Judiciary Committee's hearings.
 
Nevertheless, on Sunday, September 16, 2018, we learned that the accuser is a Democrat college Professor named Christine Blasey Ford who decided to publicly speak about the event after Feinstein leaked it. With her public remembrances, the accusation turned from one of assault to attempted rape, and she revealed that she had actually spoken to her marriage counselor about it in 2012.
 
Amongst the right, indignation turned to anger as the nation witnessed yet another attempt to destroy the moral character of a judicial candidate.  From the left, elation ruled the day, as it hoped against all hope that the nomination of a Constitutional conservative candidate would be obstructed.
 
Although laced with nefariousness and hypocrisy, the issue was too explosive to ignore for a Judiciary Committee on the cusps of favorably voting the candidate out.  
 
For his part, Judge Kavanaugh categorically denied the event stating that he had never participated in any event like the one described by Ford, either in high school or at any other occasion.  Kavanaugh, in fact, has displayed an eagerness to proceed with an official denial of the allegations, under oath, and to do whatever it takes to clear his otherwise impeccable name.  
 
So now, the Judiciary Committee has decided to resolve the discrepancy by placing Ford and Kavanaugh under oath to have her tell her story and to have Kavanaugh answer her allegations on Monday, September 24.
 
So what can we expect?
 
Definitely, another circus.  For one, the protesters will once again parade across the meeting room chanting their hysterical and often unintelligible opposition to Kavanaugh. Senators Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Richard Blumenthal will each posture before the Chair and repeat their call for a delay in the process until after the midterms, and rest assured, their calls will not be made in a respectful and professional manner.
 
Ford will engage in an emotional recitation of the events as she remembers them.  She will lament that the teenager who had done this to her and had left her scarred for at least four years (by her account) will be rewarded with an appointment to the highest court of the land.  
 
Kavanaugh will deny the events.  He will say that Ford is mistaken as to the identity of the perpetrator, as it was not he, and will voice his indignation at a process that has devolved so massively that it is now impeding the nation's ability to consider capable candidates for key positions, comments that will equally apply to our electoral process. 
 
But the dark horse is someone else entirely, an author and conservative political activist aptly named Mark Judge.  He was the young man who was an alleged participant in the events of that evening.  For now, Judge categorically deniesever witnessing Kavanaugh in the type of behavior described by Ford.  His testimony, if sought, should seal the deal on the accusations against Kavanaugh.  
 
So, in the end, the show and the theatrics will have lowered the standard on the confirmation process by yet another notch. The question before the hearing will be one of courage and conviction.  The Democrats, in their zeal to advance their political agenda at all costs regardless of what it may do to the country, will unanimously vote against the nominee.  Those strong Republican members, the ones who recognize this fiasco as a cheap political stunt, will vote in favor of the nominee, I believe they will be unanimous as even Senator Jeff Flake, in my estimation, will vote in favor.  
 
The question then goes to the floor where Republicans such as Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski await.   
 
Unless some previously unforeseen corroborating evidence appears in support of Ford's allegation, I think Kavanaugh gets confirmed by one vote.  Better yet, I believe that, barring any information that is yet unforeseen, it is imperativethat Kavanaugh get confirmed.  If he does, it will send a message to these morally corrupt Democrats regarding the futility of their antics.   Alternatively, if Kavanaugh's confirmation should fail absent any concrete corroborating evidence, it will embolden them and send the nominating process into a tailspin with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, an even more conservative judge waiting in the wings, and this time, the nominee will be a she.
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

 by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
It's Constitution Day, and I find myself in the most amazing place in the world:  The Library of Congress.
 
In a million years I would have never guessed that I would be at the Library of Congress writing about such a propitious day, but then again, who would have guessed that I would have gone to law school, or that I would have written a book defending that most providential of documents laid out the hands of man?  Yet here I am. 
 
Don't get me wrong.  I don't find myself in Washington, D.C. merely to visit this most auspicious place with its roots to Thomas Jefferson himself, or to marvel at walls of books that envelope me, although those alone would have been sufficient reasons.  
 
I am in Washington, D.C. on a quest to defend the Constitution and promote it, and only coincidentally does this visit happen to fall on a day that commemorates that most insightful document.  For far too long, our nation has taken the immensity of our Constitution and its precepts for granted.  The result has been a gradual, but relentless erosion of all the principles we hold so dear.  As Mr. Dakota Wood of the Heritage Foundation told me just today, what the Framers did was essentially harness the realities of human nature and use them to form a government. 
 
What they got was a wondrous blueprint for a government that is still functional over two centuries later, and that, in short, was the secret to pulling off the greatest miracle of self-governance in human history.  
 
Admittedly, this post is way too short, partly because I recognize that no matter what I write, my musings would not do the topic justice, but more importantly because there is so much more work to be done. So, I will leave you for now, but with a guarantee that I will be back with more.
 
May God bless our great nation.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

 by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On September 11, 2018, Peter Suderman the managing editor of Reason.com, wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times warning of the slippery slope in regulating social media. 
 
He missed the point.
 
The article comes on the heels of multiple threats to freedom of speech and the free exchange of opinion and information displayed by multiple social media giants.  Facebook has been accused of playing an active role in filtering the information flowing through its outlet.  Far from denying it, Facebook has embraced that task.  Indeed, Facebook’s Vice President of Messaging, David Marcus, has been quoted as saying, “[Facebook is] here in the middle to protect the quality and integrity of your messages and to ensure that you’re not going to get a lot of stuff you don’t want.”
 
Since when is that Facebook's responsibility? As a matter of fact, it is impossiblefor Facebook or any other social media outlet to keep us from getting "a lot of stuff [we] don't want!"  
 
And just this week, conditions at Facebook got even more threatening when Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, announced it would be regulating the content of posts to ascertain the authenticity of sources and information.  Of course, he couches this with his concern for Russian meddling in America's election process, a concern that we all share, but for Zuckerberg, the issue is not one of preserving the free exchange of ideas, but of striking "the right balance."According to Zuckerberg, Facebook will be taking on the responsibility of "improving our defenses," and "removing fake news."
 
But is that even possible?
 
Media giants such as Facebook and Twitter have admitted they have algorithms aimed at detecting the dissemination of everything from fake news to hate speech.  But one man's offensive speech is another's steeple of literature.
 
And then, of course, is the issue of political speech.  Numerous conservative writers, amongst them public servants have been shadow banned on Twitter.  Shadow banning is a covert method through which tweets are discoverable when sought, but will not spontaneously pop up on another's news feed.  The effect is to significantly limit the exposure of commentary offensive to Twitter.  Not offensive to you; nor objectively offensive; but rather, offensive to Twitter! The practice has been so noticeable that it has Congress investigating after it was discovered that the practice was disparately affecting Republicans
 
The whole situation begs the question, why would we ever entrust these corporate giants with something as precious as filtering our political speech?  
 
Of course, the answer is we should not.  But that's not what bothers Suderman.  In his article, the major concern is the overwhelming bombardment of extraneous information upon the user.  According to Suderman, "In practice, the actual experience of social media, for many users, is not one of control but of virtual bombardment, in which a flood of ideas and opinions that are irritating, dull and often outright offensive often seem impossible to avoid."
 
Suderman's concern is a valid one, but this is not the greater evil.  
 
The big problem is the insistence of medial giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and others posing as neutral conveyors of information to actively filter and control the type of information they allow to progress through their channels, particularly within the silo of political speech.  
 
Our Framers saw a big threat in government's control of political speech and of the pursuit of the truth.  As we see daily, the tendency for government to manipulate and suppress political speech continues to be a threat, but there is a new player in town, one no less effective; the social media giant. 
 
Suderman asserts what is presently a reality: "social media corporations, as private entities, have the right to ban anyone, for any or no reasons."  
 
Not if they hold themselves out to be an equal conduit for all speech and then don't.  
 
Fraud is the wrongful or criminal deception committed with the intent to cause a personal or financial gain for the deceiver.  If it is done in the inducement it is done with the aim of getting another party to act in a certain manner.  Here, social media giants claim to be the neutral purveyors of the flow of your information.  Twitter claims to be "what's happening in the world and what people are talking about," not what only certain, politically similar people are talking about.  And Facebook's mission statement claims the company exists to "give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together."  It's notcertain communities, or certainparts of the world, politically or otherwise.
 
When a social media giant claims to equally welcome all, it benefits financially.  When it fails to do so by suppressing certain speech after luring its clients into participating, it engages in deceit.  If it does so for profit, it engages in fraud.
 
Generally, government ought not interfere in the private affairs of men. But when a giant organization takes advantage of its position to clandestinely suppress or promote the views of others, it is proper for government to step in, through its regulatory capacity, and right the wrong that has been created.  
 
For Twitter, Facebook, and others, they are getting dangerously close to that point.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

This was another tumultuous week for the nation as it grappled with hurricanes present and past and wrestled with continued attacks on President Trump.
 
The political news week began in the most unforeseeable of places, the tennis courts of the U.S. Open with Serena Williams engaging in a series of unprofessional behaviors when umpire, Carlos Ramos, cited her for a coaching violation.  Never mind that Serena's coach admitted he had broken the United States Tennis Association rules, Serena, later in the match, went on to throw her racquet and verbally abuse the umpire for what she called an unfounded accusation of her cheating. Ramos had no choice but to dock her a point, eventually leading to Serena's loss against the young, Japanese player, Naomi Osaka.  Amazingly, the sporting event aroused a firestorm of baseless accusations regarding sexism within the USTA and Ramos himself.  
 
In an unexpected twist, Martina Navratilova took to the defense of Ramos and joined the growing admonishment of Serena by writing an op ed published in the The New York Times.  Unfortunately for NYT, this level of insightful writing did not frequently grace its pages this week.  Thefederalistpages.com covered the story in its own opinion piece observing the parallels between the wacky behavior displayed on the court by players, fans, and the media alike, except in the case of Naomi Oaska who graced us with her professionalism and humility.

Thankfully, Tuesday was a relatively quiet day with countless, somber observances of the seventeenth anniversary of the tragic and cowardly, September 11, terrorist attacks.  
 
But the news cycle was only to intensify amidst the news of political and climatologic cyclones.  The news cycle came alive when one-time Trump Presidential Campaign Chairman and all- around-shady-guy, Paul Manafort, agreed to a plea deal regarding his dealings as a lobbyist for certain pro-Russian, Ukrainian, government officials.  Although the activities for which Manafort pled guilty dealt with events preceding his involvement with the Trump Campaign by nearly a decade, the plea arrangement with the Bob Mueller investigation team led many to wonder what Manafort knew that was so attractive to Mueller; a question that attracted a great deal of attention during Thefederalistpages.com's Dr. Gonzalez's appearance on ABC7 Friday.
 
By Friday, the nation's eyes had turned back to the climatological cyclone, as Florence, a category 5 hurricane, crawled its way towards the Carolina coast.  The slowdown was enough to weaken the hurricane prior to landfall on Friday, but nevertheless, its slow pace and high rain production guaranteed that the nation would have another major disaster with which to deal in the coming week. Our thoughts and prayers here at the Thefederalistpages.com are with our breathren in the Carolinas as they deal with the tempest that is befalling them.
 
President Trump's Tweetstorm was not to be left behind this week. A new death toll from Hurricane Maria that had ransacked Puerto Rico on September 20, 2017, was published by George Washington University estimating that 2,975 people had died from the monster storm, not the originally reported number of 18.  President Trump called the results to question in a dismissive tweet causing some to attack him for his comment.  One thing is certain, and still to be formally analyzed in this blog, the study is horribly flawed and terribly unscientific.
 
Finally, as the news cycle accelerated towards the end of the week, Michael Avenatti who Therevolutionaryact.com Founder, Rod Thomson, called "a slimy porn lawyer" made sure to counter the week's shining moment for The New York Times editorial staff by submitting his meritless analysis of why President Trump should be indicted.  The fallaciousness of his argument was covered by Thefederalistpages.com and on Right Talk America with Julio and Rod.  
 
Finally, Thefederalistpages.com covered the stupidity of Nike's decision to name disgraced quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, to head their new, "Just Do It," campaign.
 
As Hurricane Florence and the nation barrel into the upcoming week, you can rest assured that we will be around to provide you with insight and analysis of the week's events, so please visit our website frequently and follow us on Facebook at The Federalist Pages and on Twitter at @thefederalistpages.

 
Avenatti And His Fallacious Argument For Indicting The President.
by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On September 13, 2018, Michael Avenatti made the case for President Trump's indictment in the opinion section of The New York Times.  There are only two flaws with Avenatti's argument.  It has no basis in fact.  It has no basis in law.  
 
First, let us recall who Avenatti is.  He is the attorney for Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, two of the least trusted names in America.  He is also a media hound who has a predilection for involvement in celebrity cases.  But despite his lucrative legal ventures, Avenatti has not been without his legal and financial troubles.  Avenatti's law firm has been forced into bankruptcy on at least two occasions, and he has personally been subject to multiple accusations of financial shortcomings in his professional dealings.  
 
So, naturally, one would expect that The New York Timeswould be especially careful in accepting a piece dealing with a matter in which Avenatti was directly involved. 
 
Think again. 
 
The Absence of Supporting Facts.
 
In order to prosecute anyone in the United States, much less the President, there must be some evidence that a crime has been committed.  Avenatti has none.  As a matter of fact, in his article, all he says as to the factual basis for indicting the President is, "there are many indications that there is [sufficient evidence to support an indictment of President Trump]– the special counsel, Robert Mueller, who is investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, and prosecutors from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, who are investigating payments to my clients, Stormy Daniels, and Karen McDougal, should present their evidence to grand juries."
 
That's it.  That's all he's got.  A wish. A desire.  Never mind that the Special Prosecutor has admitted that he has yet to find any evidence of collusion.  And never mind that the payments made to Avenatti's client have a very high bar to clear before rising to the level of criminality.  These are obstacles utterly ignored by Avenatti, but they present no difficulties to either him or The New York Times.
 
Absence of Supporting Law.
 
Under any other circumstances, I would be in a position to conclude my commentary since the case can move no further, except that Avenatti is allowed to continue.  
 
Having established his airtight factual case for prosecuting the President, Avenatti then turns to the matters in law.  Here, he makes the argument that the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, should be prosecuted so that the Supreme Court may rule on the constitutionality of whether the President is immune to prosecution.  (I kid you not.)
 
I submit that Avenatti couldn't care a hare's foot as to the Supreme Court's opinion on the President's immunity to prosecution.  In my opinion, his only interest lies in moving his case forward and staying in the spotlight.  Regardless, the resolution of an academic argument regarding the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary is hardly a sufficient reason to prosecute the President, and of course, The New York Times should know that.
 
But more to the point, Avenatti makes no compelling case that the President is even subject to prosecution by any method other than impeachment.  Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, expressly states, "The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."  Further, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution makes it perfectly clear that the power to try the President lies with the Senate: 
 
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.  When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
 
And finally, and most directly on point, Article II, Section 4 states, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
 
With these three phrases, the Framers created a system by which a miscreant president can be found subject to trial, tried, and convicted.  True, the Framers did not use the word, nor address the possibility of, prosecution, but this fact does not open the door to Avenatti's argument. It completely closes it.  Let us recall that the federal government (the national government to the Framers) is a government of enumerated powers.  If it is not in the Constitution, then it was not a power for the national government to employ.  The fact that prosecuting or indicting the President is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution serves as a pretty stark repudiation of the remedy for the highest-ranking official of the land.  Moreover, a close reading of Article II, Section IV, pretty much lays to rest any foundation for a different interpretation, "The President. . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment of, and Conviction for. . . " That's it.  That's the only remedy available.  
 
If the President were to be convicted as a result of his impeachment and then removed from office under the legislature's judiciary powers, he or she would no longer be President and would, at that point, be subject to criminal prosecution.  That's when a jurisdictional officer becomes empowered to prosecute a former president.
 
It seems pretty clear-cut that the House of Representatives is the President's grand jury and the Senate his judge and petit jury, but Avenatti, in his fallacy, argues to the contrary using a case involving none other than Bill Clinton; Clinton v. Jones.  
 
The first error Avenatti makes in deploying this case is his conflation of the rules applying to civil litigation with those involving a criminal case.  
 
Clintonwas a civil lawsuit brought against the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, by Paula Jones for damages involving her alleged sexual harassment.  In it the President argued that he was not subject to litigation because, in carrying out the duties of the Office of the Presidency, he was too busy to properly defend himself.  Additionally, it would be inappropriate for the President to be subjected to depositions and other inquiries in mounting his defense as such activities would inevitably interfere with his abilities to carry out his duties as President.  The Court disagreed, holding that no one, even the President, is above the law, and the trial was allowed to move forward.  
 
But the prosecution of a president is a criminal matter for which the ruling in Clinton would not apply, nor would the conclusion that no man is above the law because even in arguing that the President is immune to prosecution, he would still be subject to the Constitution of the United States and the remedies divined by the Framers of that foundational document.  
 
In Men In Black, Agent Kevin Brown, the character played by Tommy Lee Jones, picked up a copy of three curbside tabloids calling them, "the best investigative reporting on the planet.  Go ahead; look at The New York Times if you want to.  They get lucky sometimes."  
 
Although he was right in principle, he erred in giving The New York Times too much credit. 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 

 by
Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
In a move characteristic of the growing disconnect between corporate America and the American public, Nike has decided to brazenly insult the vast majority of consumers by choosing Colin Kaepernick as the face of the company.  According to Nike officials, Kaepernick will be part of the company's renewed "Just do it," campaign.  The ads will include phrases such as, "Believe in something.  Even if it means sacrificing everything."
 
The idea reeks with the scent of stupid, but according to the Wall Street Journal, the marketing campaign is designed to celebrate "athletes who have chased crazy dreams, no matter the obstacle or outcome."
 
Here's the problem, one Reuters poll conducted in September, 2016, just after Kaepernick began his insanely offensive practice of kneeling during the National Anthem, found that 72% of Americans considered his actions unpatriotic.  What's more, the fallout of his so called "protest" has led to the deterioration of the NFL brand and the loss of viewership, not to mention countless in revenue dollars.
 
On social media, the reaction to Nike's announcement has been predictably stark.  Almost immediately, images appeared of Nike tennis shoes being set ablaze.  And Nike investors have also voiced their opinion through their haste in running away from the company and causing a one-day, 3% drop in stock prices.
 
Early data is starting to confirm what the Nike marketing department was unable to perceive.  One poll by Morning Consult demonstrated a 34-percentage drop in Nike's favorability rating amongst adults.   And the numbers were not much better amongst Nike's traditional consumer targets.  Nike customers showed a 15-point drop in their perceived favorability of the company while Millennials demonstrated an 8-point drop to a 51% favorability rating.  Even among African Americans the drop was considerable sliding from an 82% favorability rating to 74%.  In the meantime, the likelihood that Americans would buy Nike products suffered a similar fate with the expressed likelihood that pollees would purchase Nike products plummeting from 49% to 39% in just about 5 days.
 
Why Nike would undertake this action is baffling. Unlike Joe Montana, Dan Marino, John Elway, Joe Namath, Michael Jordan, Lebron James, and others who have graced the covers of magazines, cereal boxes, and television ads, Kaepernick has not been one of the ultra-elites of his field.  In 2016, Kaepernick was benched in favor of Blaine Gabbert, and his combined ranking with his co-quarterback was 26th out of 32 teams.  Colin Kaepernick is by no stretch of the imagination the Michael Phelps of football.
 
Clearly, Kaepernick's prowess on the field is not the reason for his selection.  Rather, it is likely the result of some political and economic calculation.  Nike marketing executives must think that Kaepernick's activities on the sideline and off the field resonates with its target audience. Somehow, Nike has concluded that whatever distaste his actions brought to the general public is worth the celebration of Kaepernick's willingness to "[chase] crazy dreams."  So, far, however, their conclusion appears to be nothing more than a horrible miscalculation.  
 
And this brings us to the gross disconnect between the corporate world and the rest of the United States.  
 
Nike represents the latest in a string of corporate actions openly displaying disdain for American foundational principles and institutions.  Although they deny actively doing so, Facebook, Google, and Twitter have demonstrated their hostilities to conservative views by suppressing and otherwise shunning them.  Google has fostered a work environment averse to supporters of Donald Trump and expressers of conservative dogma.  Bank of America has demonstrated its opposition to the Second Amendment and its proponents by refusing to lend money to gun manufacturers.  And earlier this year, Yeti announced it would be ending its relationship with the NRA, lest we forget that Yeti is an ice cooler manufacturer, and sportsmen, many of whom relish their Second Amendment rights, love coolers. And who can forget Walt Disney, the bastion of childhood innocence, and its open disregard for the concerns of countless American parents through its open embrace of gay days at its theme parks?  
 
So what is it about corporate culture that shuns traditional American values and does not fear insulting America's geographical midsection?
 
I have a theory.  
 
Over the past few decades we have witnessed corporate America's adoption of political correctness.  It was a path of least resistance led by its attorney and marketing ranks in the hopes of never insulting anyone and not losing any potential business.  The infiltration of political correctness coupled with the country's continued moral decay and the lesser appreciation of all things American by our youth have allowed this subgroup to set up a stronghold in our nation's corporate institutions.  Until now, people like you and me have not pushed back.  But these organizations are massive influences in our culture and in the national perception of normalcy.  Their increasing aversion to American core beliefs has now become noticeable and increasingly brazen, and may have finally triggered a backlash.  Whether it's too late for Americans to reverse the tide, of course, remains to be seen.
 
Nike's of course is a totally different problem. Nike's action wasn't so much an act of progressive political correctness, but rather sheer buffoonery.  Theirs is a mistake so colossal, it may actually take its place as the greatest marketing error in history.  Until they rectify this situation, for them there will be a new slogan, "Nike.  Just Stupid."
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 

Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
The recent antics at the U.S. Open Women's Final's game were nothing short of shameful.  It was a weekend where the reigning queen of tennis, Serena Williams, by verbally abusing an umpire and breaking her racket, displayed a level of unsportsmanlike conduct unbecoming of even a Democratic United States Senator. Behavior so rancid that it unprecedentedly prompted a former uncontested Queen of Tennis, Martina Navratilova, to write an article in the New York Times reprimanding Serena for her behavior. But the real culprit, the one engaging in the most offensive behavior was not either one of the players.  It wasn't the referee.  It wasn't even the U.S. Tennis Association.
 
For the sake of background, let's recap the events leading to America's latest public circus.  This year's U.S Open Women's Final pitted the often great Serena Williams against an upstart in tennis, a 20-year-old Japanese woman named Naomi Osaka.  It was a match everyone expected, or even hoped, Serena would win.  Serena, with her muscular frame and nearly infinite experience ought to, all observers thought, handily defeat relatively inexperienced, 19th ranked player.
 
But then life happened.
 
Things began to unravel when, in the second set, Serena was given a warning for coaching.  In professional tennis, a player's coach is not allowed to give instructions during the match, and the responsibility for the coach's behavior falls squarely on the player.  On this occasion, Serena's coach was given a warning when he was seen giving Serena two-handed signals.  Although Serena claimed to not have been aware of the signals and to not be a cheater, the fact is that whether she was aware of her coach's actions or not was strictly irrelevant.  He did it, and she gets docked.  Those are the rules.  
 
Although many will argue that the illegal conduct takes place all the time in tennis, like so many other times in sports, this time the umpire called it.  It happens. The game goes on.
 
Later Serena's conduct degraded further when she purposely broke her racket after losing her serve.  Racket abuse is an automatic violation in professional tennis, but Serena, upon being charged with a violation continued her decompensation by vociferously arguing with the umpire, Carlos Ramos.  
 
Mr. Ramos, at this point, and apparently with no discretion to do otherwise, deducted a point from Serena, to which Serena responded by accosting him, demanding an apology, and at one point calling him a thief.  Throughout these antics, Naomi kept her cool, and merely waited for her opponent to regain her composure long enough to continue the match.  
 
As so often happens in tennis, the player that maintains her cool and does not engage in disruptive antics wins the match, and this case was no exception.  Naomi went on to win the match and become tennis's latest U.S. Open Champion.
 
But later things really got out of hand at the Awards Ceremony when ESPN's Tom Rinaldi took to the microphone to welcome everyone. Instead of the expected cheers, Rinaldi was met with loud and intense booing and howling from the crowd, taunting so intense that it unleashed tears from the eyes of the young Naomi causing her to hide her face behind her visor.  
 
It was a despicable display at so many levels.  Of course, the conduct most easily absconded is that of Serena Williams herself.  Her immature display and rants was certainly unbecoming of a professional athlete, especially one of her stature.
 
But Serena's misconduct was surpassed by those displayed during the Awards Ceremony.  First, the comments of the United States Tennis Association President Katrina Adams where she observed that "perhaps this was not the result we were looking for today," were as shocking as they were condescending.  To make such official commentary when ostensibly serving as a neutral overseeing authority of a championship that knows no winner until after the matches are played displays an inherent bias unbecoming of any league.  Then, to ad to the surrealism of the moment, she adulates Serena, calling her a "a role model and respected by all."
 
Well, not that day.  That day, Serena had just disrespected all authority in tennis. She had engaged in deplorable behavior that ultimately cost her $17,000.00 and brought great discredit to her career and her league.  And she demonstrated the very behavior parents of young tennis players train their kids to avoid.  If anything, Adams should have shunned Serena that day, not sung her praises.
 
Then there was the opportunistic conduct of Serena herself.  Only after noticing that her opponent had been shamed to tears did she soften her stance. But even then she displayed only self-righteousness.  To Serena, she was the one who had been wronged, and she was going to demonstrate a false sense of grace only because it would soothe the crowd and afford her greater standing before them.  Her very claim that "we will get through this," were comments assuming that something had gone terribly wrong and that some terrible injustice would somehow be corrected through perseverance and faith. 
 
No, Serena.  There had been no injustice.  You lost, 6-2; 6-3.  You lost fair and square, and the umpire's actions against which you so immaturely protest were completely compliant with the rules you were required to uphold.
 
But worst of all was the conduct of the fans. Since when do we shun the underdog? Since when are we such blind followers of power and royalty that we would gladly bypass the rules and forgive misbehaviors merely so that we can anoint the Queen the winner?  And since when do we enter a sporting event with such preconceived notions of the outcome that we scowl at any result that does not fit our narrative?
 
Oh, yeah.  I forgot.  Since the liberals took over our schools and the modern Democrats set foot upon the White House ten years ago.  My apologies. . . 
 
But at least there was one redeeming factor. Throughout it all there was one figure demonstrating pure and unbridled class.  She demonstrated more humility than most of us have seen in decades, and more gratitude for the blessings she had been given than many churchgoers do today.  She was an individual that throughout all the punishment, she thanked the very crowd that was berating her for the honor of watching her match and then thanked Queen Serena for playing against her. She was a shining light not only on the court, but even more so afterwards.  That person was the new U.S. Open Champion, and the first tennis champion from Japan, Ms. Naomi Osaka.  May her example live long into tennis's future and may she continue to display all those attributes that, at least on this occasion, Serena Williams couldn't.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.
 

"An unconscionable, gross, and utter disregard for the institution of the Senate and for the dignity of the Chamber, if there is any such dignity left."  
 
This is how I characterize the circus that was the opening of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 4, 2018.
 
From the very outset, the proceedings played out like a pay-per-view freak show.  No sooner had Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) begun calling the meeting to order than the mockery of the confirmation process began. Immediately, Senator Kamala Harris in an out-of-order rant unbecoming of a grade school student council member much less a sitting senator, yelled at Grassley, demanding that he delay the proceedings due to the prior night's release of 42,000 pages of documents relating to the Judge.  
 
Connecticut Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal immediately followed with disruptors in the crowd joining in by yelling and screaming at the Republican members of the Committee.  
 
The mood at the dais, which initially appeared to be somewhat relaxed, turned deathly somber as the Democrats continued their disorderly, staged rants, with contributions from Senator Cory Booker and Senator Mazie Hirono. 
 
I have been watching legislative proceedings, both in the state and federal levels, for over two decades.  Never have I seen a more despicable disregard for the decorum of the United States Senate, nor a greater disrespect for the conduct of the work of serving the American people, than what took place during these hearings.  
 
Let's be perfectly clear.  Like him or not, Judge Brett Kavanaugh is an extremely capable judge with an impeccable record of service to this country and to the American people.  His pursuit of justice centers on an unmitigated regard for the written law and for the strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.  I understand that there are many who wish that someone with such a strict interpretive philosophy of the Founding Documents and statutory language not be admitted entry to the Supreme Court of the United States.  But such is not the standard by which a determination is made in considering a presidential nominee.  
 
The Constitution of the United States is very clear on this matter.  It is the President who has the authority to nominate members to judicial appointment, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate."  Despite the efforts of the disruptors and Democrats in today's hearing, it is not up to the Senate to determine the philosophical make-up of the Supreme Court of the United States.  That is up to the people of the United States through their election of the President; in this case, Donald J. Trump.  
 
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 76 spoke specifically to this point:
 
"To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate?  I answer that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, asilentoperation. (emphasis added).  It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of a favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connections, from personal attachment, or a view to popularity.  In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration."
 
Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is neither the result of a spirit of favoritism, of family connections, or of personal attachment; nor is Kavanaugh a man of unfit character selected from State prejudice.  Rather, by all accounts, after review of decades of public work, of over 300 judicial opinions, and of more documents than were available for the last five judicial nominees combined, Judge Kavanaugh demonstrates himself to be an upstanding character of impeccable judgment and standing within his geographical and professional communities.  If the Senate has any regard for its place in American governance or of the role afforded it by the Constitution of the United States, it would see no viable choice but to approve this nomination; and the Democrats, rather than making a mockery of themselves and of our political system, should acknowledge this.
 
Today's display of nonsensical, cheap, political comedy is quite simply the result of one thing, and one thing only: the squeals of pain and immaturity displayed by a political faction intent on keeping its most valuable legislative player, the Supreme Court of the United States, from being removed from the game of inappropriately legislating.  
 
Over the past 100 years, the progressive-infested Supreme Court has single handedly cut down legislation and social norms to suit its agenda.  It has done so under the guise of judicial interpretation, but always with an aim at undercutting the legislature's will, and in so doing, the will of the people of the United States.  The fact that this oligarchical monopoly is coming to an end is the source of great angst amongst the liberals in the Senate, but ultimately, it is not in their hands to decide.  
 
That decision fell upon the people of the United States, and they chose Donald J. Trump. 

It was about a month ago when I found myself stuck without my cell phone, without access to my computer, and without the keys to my car.  
 
I was stuck, forced to impatiently wait for a ride that was to take me to a political rally to which I had been invited to speak some 60 miles away.  
 
Waiting, I found myself engaged in the same activity in which I had engaged thirty years earlier.  
 
I watched television.
 
Naturally for me, I turned to the news and in between news segments, was bombarded with the seemingly endless parade of political attack commercials. Watching, I learned that Ron Desantis wanted to raise our taxes in Florida, inclusive of implementing an income tax, while Adam Putnam, in his disdain for Donald Trump, wanted to propagate red tide and green algae blooms in Florida.  
 
I learned that Vern Buchanan was profiting from his congressional position by purchasing luxury yachts and that David Shapiro was in favor of global warming because he owned stock in the oil industry.  
 
Most amazingly, I also learned that I wanted to implement death panels and that I hated Donald Trump.  
 
Dismayed, I got up for a bite when I stumbled upon the day's mail.  There, I learned that Republican Matt Caldwell also hated Donald Trump, and that County Commission candidate Lourdes Ramirez could speak to the dead.  (Although delivered as an attack piece, I remember thinking mediumship was likely a positive quality especially considering how badly those who could not communicate with the dead had mucked our political system.)
 
Fast forward to Friday, August 31.  That's the day I came across a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Mark Pulliman discussing the all out assault the United States Senate executed against then Supreme Court Justice Nominee, Robert Bork.  It was an assault so massive, so untrue, and so unabashed in its immorality that it actually gave rise to the verb, "bork," meaning to vilify, or systematically attack a candidate or public figure, especially in the media, in order to obstruct a person's appointment into public office.
 
For Mr. Bork, the first volley came from Senator Ted Kennedy who, as Pullliman puts it "made one of the most disgraceful speeches ever delivered on the Senate floor," falsely accusing Bork of supporting "back-alley abortions."  He also accused Judge Bork, who until that moment had been considered an impeccable candidate for the Supreme Court and a lover of the United States Constitution, of supporting segregated lunch counters, censorship, and a rogue police force.   
 
Of course, none of Senator Kennedy's allegations were true, but they nevertheless were successful in at least temporarily destroying a just man's reputation; long enough to keep him from being able to secure his nomination.
 
Judge Bork had been borked.  His confirmation fell short in a vote of 42-58, and the roll of the Senate in judicial confirmations was forever changed from a body that reviewed the qualifications and integrity of a presidential nominee to one that sucked those nominees into the world of cut-throat partisan politics and personal destruction.  
 
Obviously Pulliman's article speaks to the state of affairs of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, as we have already heard the calls from Senator Chuck Schumer about a cover up and his argument that the President of the United States should have no authority to nominate a Supreme Court Justice so long as the he is under investigation for fear of the appointed Justice blocking a presidential impeachment or investigation.  
 
Of course, Schumer's argument, as are so many others of his creations, is a work of fiction barely fit for delivery in a John Grisham novel, much less in serious political discourse.  But recalling the myriad of television and print ads delivered during this primary season, I am struck by the observation that Puliman's sentiment regarding the Senate's shameful conduct in considering presidential nominees is equally applicable, if not more so, to our campaign process.  
 
A very high ranking elected official in discussing this very issue with me a few days prior to the publication of Pulliman's article observed, "Julio, the primary is all about the character assassination," and my heart, aware of the accuracy of his observation, sank a little lower.
 
The fact is that those candidates who feel they are inferior to their opponents, or view their standing in the polls as being threatened, will immediately create whatever negative brand they can about their victims and deliver it with reckless zeal.  Similarly, those who are well funded will deliver just as vicious and false attacks upon their opponents with the aim of helping to guarantee their victory. 
 
Of course, we will never know how many fantastic candidates, superior to their victorious opponents have been successfully borked as a result of the appalling state of affairs we have allowed political discourse to devolve into, but a number of observations are nevertheless irrefutable.  .Our nation is suffering from many ills today. Immorality abounds.  Spending is out of control.  And corruption infests our greatest institutions.  
 
But this much is also true.  Political campaigns, with their undue reliance on character assassinations, is helping to guarantee that the people best suited to propagate these ills are the ones who are getting elected. 

Fascim:  a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
 
 
Last week, a heated argument ensued between CNN's Chris Cuomo and market strategist and motivational speaker Steve Cortes over whether there was a moral equivalence between Antifa's violence and the actions of white supremacists.  Cuomo had previously argued that there was none, which Cortes claimed represented a defense of Antifa and its predatory tactics. 

As part of his defense, Cuomo challenged Cortes to look at his actual comments before deciding whether he really was defending Antifa.  
Well, I took him up on it, and as it turns out, Chris, you did defend Antifa, and you were wrong in doing so.  

The argument centered on a "Closing Argument" Cuomo delivered in his show, Cuomo Prime Time.  In it, Cuomo asserts that there is no moral equivalence between the actions of Nazis and white supremacists, and those of Antifa.  In defending Antifa, Cuomo argued, "all punches are not equal."  He explained, "when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally as wrong as the bigots they are fighting?"

For Cuomo the answer was no.  But, of course, that presupposes that the fighter is coming to the fight with noble intentions.  

Clearly, Nazism is evil.  This point ought to be a slam-dunk in light of the overwhelming documentation of its history.  From the dissemination of hatred throughout Europe, to its unforgivable slaughter of over 6 million Jews, to its unjustified attempts at land acquisition for the expansion of its dictatorship during World War II, the Nazis have demonstrated themselves to represent the pinnacle of evil and the quintessential example of human indecency and immorality.  

Thankfully, Cuomo agrees with that premise, although he is mistaken in characterizing neo-Nazis and white supremacists as being part of the right; alternative or otherwise.  Like communism, socialism, and yes, fascism, Nazism and racism is a leftist concept. It does not come from the right.  

The political right in America is that sub segment of the population professing the supremacy of natural law, which is a universal law based on the immutable relationship between each man and the Creator.  As such, there is no room for collectivism in the right, and whatever power yielded to society is done solely for the purpose of promoting the peaceful coexistence of men.

Alternatively, the aforementioned political philosophies are based on some form of collectivism.  In short, they believe that a group, economic class, nationalistic collection of people, or overarching political organization or government is the supreme authority in societal interaction and societal design.  For them, laws and government are not created to protect the individual and his or her liberties, but rather they are created to promote the wellbeing of the group.  In these leftist political views, the needs of the group will supersede the rights of the individual. 
 
Not so with groups from the right.  So, when Cuomo and other left-leaning political observers call a political group that professes the supremacy of a subclass of individuals, in this case whites, as being part of the political right; alternative right or otherwise, they are absolutely wrong, and I suspect are doing so with the intent of demonizing their conservative political foes.  

The fact is that white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or racists are  manifestations of leftist political thought akin to fascism, and any other form of collectivist political philosophy. 

Now to Antifa.

The problem with Antifa in terms of defining the moral standing of its positions is that it does not share a long-standing pattern of behavior demonstrating the evil behind it.  In the United States, Antifa is a loose conglomeration of militant groups claiming to be fighting fascism.  Tracing its roots to leftist organizations in Germany, Italy, and Spain during the early to mid-twentieth century, the movement withered as the dominant European fascists regimes met their demise. 
 
But with the increase in neo-nazism in Europe, European Antifa has seen its own resurgence.  

In the United States, Antifa is made up of hate-filled, radical leftists and anarchists who have adopted the view that their positions are so correct, so above reproach, that they cannot be restrained by appeals to reason.  For them, in a civil society, in a society designed for civil discourse, in a society where the precept is a search for the truth through dialogue and debate, violence is not only acceptable, but encouraged.  With their large anarchist demographic, the members of these groups have no faith in organized society or representative government.  Disruption is their mantra if not the end to their means.  In accomplishing these aims, they themselves are the sole arbiters of who is right and who is wrong, of who gets to speak and who does not, and of who gets to walk safely by and who gets to bleed.

No, Chris, Antifa is not a noble punch thrower.  

​Here's the bottom line.  

If I'm walking down the street, and I see a man wearing a swastika beating up an African-American elderly lady, woe to me if I don't intercede on her behalf. In that scenario, my punches would be morally superior to those of the assailant and, hopefully, more effective.  There, my punches as well as my intervention would be moral, righteous, and just.  

But if I establish a group of hateful youngsters, and under the false guise of protecting all the African-American elderly ladies of the world, disrupt otherwise peaceful assemblies, assault individuals at my choosing, target police officers for violence, and generally attempt to disrupt the greatest societal miracle mankind has ever seen merely to promote my own, selfish, narcissistic, and anarchist agenda, I am no longer justified. I become just another thug in line with the people I am trying to fool you into believing that I am fighting.  

​And based on your performance on your show, Chris, it appears that that they are winning.