The Press As The Enemy Of The People.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. During the past few days, I have heard some of the most unpalatable utterances from renowned, national news outlets. Following a week where a foolish and hateful idiot sent over ten bombs, (fake or real) to various Democrat leaders; where a demonic lunatic in Pittsburgh mauled down some of the most peaceful, loving people in our society; and where a man with a gun prevented another massacre from being perpetrated by an armed gunman, some in the press are making the case that these acts, unlinkable as they may be, are primarily due to the political utterances of the President of the United States. To these people facts have no bearing in the formulation of their opinion. To them, if the perpetrator of the injustice worships the President, his actions are the fault of the President of the United States. If, on the other hand, the perpetrator hates the President of the United States, his actions are still the President's fault. And if there is no identifiable political slant to the perpetrator, the defender, or the victims the President is still equally to blame. Make no mistake, the President of the United States can no more be blamed for the illegal and violent acts of a crazed lunatic than can my dog's mere existence. The President has fired back by once again calling the fake press the enemy of the people. I, for one, think the President has a point, as does a substantial portion of the electorate. Let's start by acknowledging that calling out the press's hypocritical and reckless conduct is just as valid a political observation, when true, as any other; and perhaps even more necessary. In a panel discussion on CNN, Julia Ioffe of GQ Magazine actually said, "This President has radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did." ISIS, the evil, vial, and murderous organization that almost radicalized a whole continent. ISIS, the organization that owes its success at radicalizing hundreds of thousands of individuals to the passive and permissive posture of President Barack Obama. ISIS, the organization whose radicalization consisted of justifying the decapitation of thousands and the capture and rape of countless women. And ISIS, the organization whose existence was essentially terminated by the actions of President Trump. That such patently and absurdly unjustifiable comments are allowed to fly without admonition from CNN nor sanction from GQ is utterly atrocious, yet the comments flow through the airwaves and the internet, decorated with CNN's and GQ's stamps of authenticity. During the same weekend, Joe Scarborough said that for the President to have tweeted comments about baseball and his hair "was done intentionally to send a message to white nationalists; 'this doesn't bug me that much.'" Again the comment represented a despicable, open, and wholly unsubstantiated attack, not just on the President's actions, but also on his intent. What scintilla of evidence does Scarborough have that the President was sending a signal to anyone, much less white nationalists? Of course, he has none. The allegation was completely fabricated by one whose animus against the President of the United States is so intense he can't see straight. And predictably, there was no correction from MSNBC. And on Sunday, on MSNBC, Malcolm Nance said about the President, "He uses megaphones to tell these tribes that they belong to him, and this is leading to violence," a purely hysterical, hateful, and wholly unsubstantiated comment that was once again allowed to persist by a network without retort or correction. Then there's John Heilemann, who charged during an appearance on MSNBC, "The President is obviously a racist. He's obviously a demagogue. He obviously condones anti-Semitism. Stokes up nationalist hatred." (emphasis added) Yet no president has shown greater support for Israel nor has done more to support Jewish rights and the Jewish Community than President Donald J. Trump. When outlandish charges such as these are recurrently allowed entry into the national forum under the guise of serious political discussion by news outlets that neither provide substantiation, reprimand, or correction the presence of an underlying biased, political agenda is revealed. And when such a bias commands a greater priority than truth in reporting, the reporter or networks stop serving the needs of the people and start working against them. Clearly, the press has an immeasurably important role to play in a democracy, and in particular, in the United States of America. That role is centered upon the delivery of information regarding the events of the day, inclusive of thoughtful, substantiated, and well-researched analysis. Yes, the news is biased, but that is to be expected, as we are all biased. But we expect the press to be responsible and fair. Make no mistake, when the press is delivering stories and opinions on a national level with the primary purpose of undermining the President of the United States regardless of the truth of the matter asserted, it is acting against the interests of the people. When it spreads lies, or paints stories in a deceitful light so as to forward an institutionalized political agenda at the expense of the truth, it is acting against the interests of the people. When it purposefully conflates hyperbolic political rhetoric delivered during a campaign despite the office holder's actual performance demonstrating the contrary, it is acting against the interests of the people. When the press stops acting as an objective deliverer of facts and instead acts as a propaganda machine, it acts against the interest of the people. When the press allows its newsq programs to be used as platforms by political hacks to foment vitriol and lies without retort or correction from the network, it acts against the interests of the people. And when a person or institution consistently and recurrently acts against the interest of the American people, it becomes the enemy of the people. In either case, as demonstrated by its disgraceful performance this week, the disservice the press is presently providing our Republic and our democracy vastly outweighs its benefit. It is clearly time for the press, as an institution, to reassess the job it is doing on behalf of the people of the United States. If it does, and if it were to provide more objective and substantiated coverage of the day’s events, I am certain it would stop being viewed as an enemy of the people by nearly half the country and will reassert its position as the indispensible ally to our republic that it needs to be. 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.
0 Comments
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. "The fastest way to find out another's true purpose is to call their bluff." On Saturday, the Associated Press reported that thousands of members of the Central American caravan making their way to the United States rejected an offer by Mexican officials for shelter, medical attention, schooling, and jobs in exchange for seeking asylum in Mexico rather than proceeding to the United States. The response allegedly delivered via a vote sent a chilling message to Mexican and American officials. In short, their answer was no, thank you. They wanted to continue to the United States But why? The naive answer is that the individuals traveling in the caravan are so enamored with life in the United States and the opportunities awaiting them that they will strike no compromise towards that end. But there are still another 1,000 miles arguing against them, the word that the United States will not allow them passage and the mobilization of American troops to back it up. Any one of these arguments alone is sufficiently convincing to most, much less the compendium of the three. Additionally, the conditions reports are that the conditions faced by the travelers are grueling. Is it really plausible that the United States is so attractive to these individuals as to disallow the opportunity for any compromise? A clue to the answer may lie with the agenda of the organizers of the exodus, Pueblos Sin Fronteras. Their stated "Dream" is to "turndown border walls imposed by greed," while their website proudly displays images of individuals climbing over American borders walls. So, as the migrants turn down humanitarian offers for shelter and jobs one must ask, is their plight really one driven by the promise of economic opportunity, or is it something more sinister? Is it, instead, the object of the manipulation of an organization's political agenda? With any luck, the answer to these latter questions await the results of an FBI investigation. 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 Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. This week has witnessed the destructive and sinister actions of two deranged and evil men who sought to sow havoc and hatred upon others. The first, of course, was the attempted (or feigned) mail bombings by an unstable individual in Miami targeting prominent Democrats. The second is the vicious, senseless, and horrible mauling of Jews assembled within their own synagogue in Pittsburgh for the purposes of prayer, fellowship, and worship. Obviously, neither of these events is in any way tolerable in a Republic or in American society. And although there is, I expect, complete unanimity on this matter, the consensus breaks down with the attempt at identifying the root cause of our malady. Many explanations can be posited for the deterioration in the interactions between Americans we have recently witnessed. Some blame the faster-paced society in which we live. Others discuss video games and television violence. Still others suggest that the issue lies in the vitriol with which politicians and reporters alike engage the public and each other. And of course, the deceitful opportunists will go further and place the blame squarely on the President of the United States. In reality, the problem is much more elemental than this and vastly more ominous. What we are witnessing is, quite simply, the latest manifestation of the eternal battle of good against evil where evil is winning. The devastating consequences of a society’s abandonment of God have played out on numerous occasions. God's destruction of His creation in response to widespread corruption, the Jews' struggles with their own moral frailties as they trekked across the desert in search of the Promised Land, the destruction of Sodom due to its wretchedness even before Lot's escape, Israel's suffering brought about by David's moral indiscretion are but a few examples of the inverse relationship between destruction and famine and closeness to God. But the association is not merely a physical one. Patrick Henry was correct when he wrote that religion "hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society." It was an insight shared by Congress in its creation of the Northwest Ordinance prompting it to include the words in Article 3 of its charter, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Unfortunately, the agenda-driven courts bent on sealing any porousness in the wall of separation between church and state described by Thomas Jefferson, abandoned those fundamental concepts. And the results, similar to the countless examples painted for us in the Bible, have been nothing short of cataclysmic. In the same time since the courts stripped our schools of prayer, the United States has seen the dissolution of its relationship to God, a deterioration in the collective faith of its citizens, and an acceleration in the hostility, hatred, and overall mayhem taking place within its borders. Make no mistake about it, what we are witnessing is no less a complete destruction of a society than the evaporation of Sodom. Only this time the destruction is much more foundational than a physical one. We are witnessing the destruction of a nation's soul, and those pointing to Donald Trump, or the Republicans, or social media, or anything short of our devolving devotion to God is losing sight of the real culprit. The culprit is evil itself, and the only path to salvation lies in following the mandates of a Judeo-Christian God. 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. 10/25/2018 Does A Monarchy Have An Inherent Right To Implement Any Law, Regardless Of Its Oppressiveness?Read Nowby
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Can a monarch really make whatever law he or she wants? If a person is living in a monarchy, does he or she have any right to resist an unjust law? One could argue that the person does not, since after all, in a monarchy every inhabitant is a subject of the king and all rights proceed from him. Such was the question posed to me in a recent discussion about Saudi Arabia and its monarchical state. In point of fact, though, monarchs do NOT have the authority to set whatever laws they desire. In fact, if monarchs possessed unlimited authority over its subjects, there would be no objective defense to the Declaration of Independence or for the separation of the United States from England. If the power of a monarch had truly been all-pervasive, then King George III would have been free to rule England and the colonies in whatever manner he wished. There would have been no parliament, and there certainly would have been no Magna Carta. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The term "Governments" in the Declaration was all-inclusive and captured monarchies. Moreover, he wrote, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (emphasis added) If monarchs were able to do whatever they wished, none of the concepts espoused by Jefferson and battled for by our Founders would hold true. The concept that monarchs had restrictions placed upon their authority dates back to the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Both men agreed that even in a monarchy, the scope of a monarch's authority was limited. To be sure, monarchs were placed on the thrown by God, but their call was to take care of His creation on earth and to act as a steward. The moment monarchs abused their power (such as by killing a journalist without affording him any due process), the monarch breached his contract and would be subject to removal. One difference between the beliefs espoused by the two men is that Augustine said the removal of a rogue monarch should be effected through prayer while Aquinas actually allowed for the forceful overthrow of the man. The bottom line is this: no nation, including a monarchy may create laws that allow it to dismiss the rights of its citizens. Doing so goes against the basic understanding of government in western culture and the basic precepts of natural law. The question then naturally is, do these same concepts apply to an Islamic state practicing not under natural law, but under Sharia law? The answer to that question awaits the actions of Saudi Arabia. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. If you're looking for a doctor to prescribe medical marijuana, you might find one in Florida. But if you want a doctor to prescribe a visit to the Braer site, a wade into an outdoor celebration of some kind, or even a prescription to touch the sea and feel the texture of the water, then your doctor is in Scotland. Yes, Scottish physicians have now been authorized to prescribe nature! The benefits of "nature" on mental and physical health have long been espoused. Conditions such as hypertension, depression, pain control, and immune disorders have been found to benefit from outdoor explorations and attempts at relaxation. So, how can you possibly prescribe nature? You can't take it. You can't swallow it. You definitely can't administer it rectally (or so I think). So how can you prescribe it? The fact is you can't. You can only recommend that a patient undergo outdoor activities. I suppose you can make recommendations for particular activities at certain locations and seasons, but calling those recommendations a prescription in need of authorization flies in the face of the definition of the word "prescription" and in the face of. . . well. . . nature! But here's the overarching question and the point that really struck me about this story: if you can't take it home with you, if you can't buy it, if you can't possess it, then why would a health care provider need authorization to prescribe it? The concept defies credulity, doesn't it? Well that's exactly what happened in Scotland! The Health Board for Shetland, Scotland, just authorized prescribing nature. If it doesn't alarm you that a governmental organization would have such overwhelming control of your health care that it can decide when your doctor may or may not prescribe something as all pervasive as nature, then I don't know what will. Whatever you do this November, fight for your health care. Don't let your government take control of it. It just might decide that you need authorization just to access nature. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Mine is a love-hate relationship with Geraldo Rivera. I find him comical and light-hearted most of the time. But then he goes off and says the stupidest things; so dumb in fact that it makes Juan Williams look professorial. In particular, Geraldo Rivera tends to fall off the deep end when he speaks of immigration, and yesterday was no exception. In an article expressing his proposal at resolving the immigration crisis, Geraldo wrote, "In exchange for leniency and a path to citizenship for long-time undocumented residents already in this country--who were brought to the U.S. as children by their parents--pro-immigration advocates, like me, should announce our support for President Trump’s border wall. It will help restore order along the southern border, and mitigate the hysteria currently gripping the national immigration debate and tainting the mid-term elections." Never mind that the position of immigration advocates regarding the President of the United States has no bearing on the state of affairs in Central America; the notion that continued opposition to President Trump's border wall will have any effect on his resolve to pursue it is also ill-contrived. Moreover, it is increasingly clear to most Americans that advocating for an open border is an absurd position that only serves to work against the interests of the United States and its citizens. But included in Geraldo's article is a statement that crosses the border between political discourse and unsubstantiated and discriminatory speech. Specifically, Geraldo said, "It is, in my opinion, fear of our nation being over-run by poor, hungry, brown people in sufficient numbers to change our basic national character, which motivates most critics of this caravan and, more broadly, illegal immigration." I can confidently speak not only for my position, but also for that of anyone I have spoken to regarding border protection, and I have been discussing this issue a heck of a lot, that in absolutely no case has anyone factored the color of one's skin or the nationality of those crossing illegally in the analysis of immigration. Quite the opposite; the only topics that keep coming up are our national sovereignty, our economy, and our national security. And for me, the most important of these is our national sovereignty. So, in response, let me tell share with you my proposal on how to address this issue. First, the necessity of building the wall, at this point, is a foregone conclusion. With the chaos we are witnessing to the south of us, there is no valid argument against it to be made. Build the wall, and build it now! Second, the more immediate question is what to do about the thousands of individuals who are heading to our southern border at this moment. Here, I think the United States is making a big mistake in playing defense. Like the prevent defense in football, the United States is sitting at the end zone waiting for its opponent to arrive in the hope that once it gets there it will be able to stop it. I say the United States needs to go on offense. The United States needs to coordinate an affirmative effort with Mexico to dissuade the "dissidents" from proceeding. The effort should begin with the airdropping of leaflets, in Spanish, letting the migrants know that they are continuing their journey at their own peril and that if they should choose to continue, they will be stopped, by force if necessary. Helicopters would deliver the same message using megaphones, urging them to turn back. Inherent in this message is the offer to have those wishing to turn back transported to their home country, free of charge. Next, in a coordinated exercise with Mexico, the United States should begin crowd disbursement activities. This will help to further diminish the size of the crowd eventually confronting our officers at the border. Further, the topic of forcibly repatriating those who remain while still in Mexico should also be discussed with Mexican officials. If amenable, the United States should engage with Mexico in joint exercises accomplishing this end. Those arriving at the border despite all these civil obstacles are more likely than not eager to engage in nefarious activities. These will be engaged, forcefully if necessary, at the border, and repelled. Having regained control in the short run, and while building the wall, the United States would then have to evaluate the issues that are allowing for an appetite for emigration in the first place. We already know these include the many economic and governmental challenges plaguing Central American countries. The United States should immediately begin a mutually beneficial, long-term strategy aimed at reforming Central America with the goal of improving living conditions while benefiting the American economy and trade. Unquestionably, if these nations partner up, the results can be lucrative for each; and for their citizens. As opposed to empty promises of support for the President, this plan will offer short-term control and long-term stability making it much more worthy of pursuit. And that, Geraldo, is an actual proposal. 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. 10/23/2018 Nicholas Winton: A Knight Against Evil; A Savior Of Lives; Yet, We've Never Heard Of Him.Read Nowby Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. What are you willing to do to defeat evil? Would you have the courage to fight it? It was December 1938, when Nicholas Winton got the call from his friend, Martin Blake. Nicholas was preparing to go skiing in Switzerland, but Martin had other plans for him. Martin wanted Winton to come to Prague and join him in caring for some refugees. Nicholas complied. Prague had become a refuge, albeit temporary, for displaced Jews. Earlier in 1938, Europe had reached the Munich Agreement resulting in the annexation of Sudetenland by Germany. Sudetenland was a province in the northwest section of Czechoslovakia. Its transfer to Germany was monumental, as it essentially signaled the end of the defenses for Czechoslovakia. That Czechoslovakia would soon be in the hands of the Nazis became a foregone conclusion. Worse, on November 8-9, the Germans led a pogrom against Jews living in Nazi terroitory. In all, thousands of Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps. Hundreds of Jewish business and synagogues were destroyed. In fact, the assault upon the Jews that November came to be known as Kristallnacht, or the night of the broken glass, because of the destruction that took place. Whatever fears the Jews may have had prior to that horrible night, it was immediately intensified. Countless Jews evacuated for safer destinations seeking an escape from the nightmare that was to come. This was the reality that confronted Nicholas when he arrived in Prague that December. But Nicholas didn't decide to go home, nor did he succumb to the futility of his efforts. Instead, he made it his mission to get the Jewish children out of Czechoslovakia. Indeed, there was already such a program at work in Europe. It was called Operation Kindertransport, but it did not include Czechoslovakia. Nicholas would have to do it on his own. First, Nicholas set up an organization called The British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia, Children's Sector. Then he began networking with friends in England and with British authorities in the hopes of being able to get the children to safety. After much effort, he finally obtained an agreement from England that the children would be allowed to relocate if there were an accepting family, and they paid a 50-pound fee. Winton's next hurdle was administrative. Although Winton was operating under great haste, his compatriots in England were not, as the country was still in denial of an impending war. It would be March 1939, before Nicholas would arrange for the first group of children to leave Prague by plane. Later, the evacuations would take place by train, and with each trip, Winton would document the names of the children and the families that had agreed to receive them. In all, Winton rescued 669 children. But the ones he remembers the most were the 250 that were loaded on a train on September 1, 1939, the same day World War II began. On that day, the Czechoslovakian borders were sealed. The children aboard that train never made it to safety. As a matter of fact, they were never heard from again. Later, Winton would reflect that he was forever haunted by the memory and fate of those kids. After the war, nothing was heard about Winton's rescue efforts, certainly not from Winton himself. But in 1988, his wife found his notes hidden in their attic. Grete Winton gave the notes to a Holocaust historian who chased down the 669 children whose names were inscribed in the book. She found 80 of them. Later that year, Winton was unsuspectingly taken to the studio of a British biographical television program named That's Life. Unbeknownst to him, the show would be about his own life. Even more amazingly, in the room were 24 of the 80 identified children. Ostensibly surrounded by complete strangers, at one point in the presentation, Winton heard the hostess ask, "Is there anyone in our audience tonight who owes their life to Nicholas Winton? If so, could you stand up please?" The first six rows of people stood. Winton would be knighted on December 31, 2002, and would die in his sleep on July 1, 2015. On his finger, he wore a ring that with a phrase from the Talmud: "Save one life, save the world."
Sir Nicholas Winton stared at the face of evil and fought back. His life, unknown to many, would forever serve as a testament to self-sacrifice and unwavering devotion to others. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Trading continued to be choppy Monday as investors displayed concerns over earnings, and rising interest rates. The Dow Jones Industrial Average posted a 126.86 loss to 25,317.48. The loss was mostly powered by lackluster performances from the energy and financial sectors. The negative close represents the fourth straight day of losses for the Dow. The big loser was the financial sector as it gave back 2.1% over the trading day. In the meantime, the tech stocks posted positive performances with the Nasdaq Composite gaining 0.3% The tepid performance is a sign of treacherous times to come as investors try to gauge earning reports that will be published this week against U.S.-China tensions, Italy's friction with the European Union, and American monetary policy. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. "Okay. Let's just pretend THIS is real. . ." Judge in Seventeen Again while holding Ned Gold's law degree. Last night, The Wall Street Journal reported the statement by the Saudi Arabian Attorney General admitting that Saudi Arabian nationalist and Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, had been killed in the country's Turkish consulate. Amazingly, the explanation provided by Saudi Arabian news agencies and the Saudi government is so patently absurd that it, in and of itself, speaks to their backwardness. In short, Saudi Arabia expects us to believe that Mr. Khashoggi, an out of shape, middle aged man who is known for fighting only with his pen and not his fists, actually allowed himself to get into a fight with 15 Saudi Arabian thugs while sitting in a Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey. Even if he was sufficiently foolhardy to allow himself to get into such an altercation, Saudi Arabia next wants us to believe that the 15 "agents" were unable to subdue Khashoggi without killing him. Even if you argue that Khashoggi had suffered some sort of medical emergency such as a heart attack or stroke, the good faith response would have been to immediately transport the victim to a Turkish hospital. We know, of course, that this did not happen. The Saudi Arabian explanation is (frankly) so stupid and amateurish that it insults the intelligence of the recipient audience. In fact, it may well be that their usual audience, the Saudi Arabian people and their regional partners, are so kept in the dark that they buy this nonsense from their officials, but Saudi Arabia must suspect that their explanation cannot fly in the United States. Americans are arguably the most media savvy people in the world. Practically every American who has been paying attention to this story is aware of the events leading to Khashoggi's death. They have already heard of the alleged existence of audio recordings depicting Khashoggi's violent death while inside the Saudi Arabian consulate. They are aware that 15 Saudi Arabian nationalists flew into Turkey and made their way to the Saudi Arabian consulate in anticipation of Khashoggi's arrival and left shortly thereafter. They know that Khashoggi only went to the consulate seeking documents that would allow him to marry his fiancé who was waiting for him outside of the building while he was being killed. They know that Khashoggi is hated by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and that the ostensibly progressive Crown Prince is amazingly repressive and intolerant to views opposite his own. They also know that Khashoggi previously left Saudi Arabia because he feared for his life. And they know that Khashoggi went into the consulate building and never came out, at least under his own power. So, who would ever be stupid enough to posit a story as ridiculous and ill-contrived as this and expect Americans to buy it? Oh yeah. I forgot. Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice as evidenced by the story they contrived when they tried to explain the attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi. It is very likely that, at this point, President Donald J. Trump knows what happened inside that building. He knows this because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had to have listened to the recording of Khashoggi's murder while visiting Turkey last week. We can conclude this with certainty because if the tape were not real, Pompeo would have said so publicly. And if he did listen to the tape, he would have been duty bound to report his findings to the President. So now, President Trump finds himself in an unenviable situation. He has little choice but to preserve a strained relationship with a repressive dictatorship in a region where no one wears a white hat. There is a reason why the President will likely accept the Saudi's explanation for Khashoggi's death, and it has to do with Iran, and terrorism, and evils greater than being forced to accept a lie. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Recently, the argument has been made that at least part of the outrage regarding the vicious murder of Washington Post reporter and Saudi Arabian nationalist, Jamal Khashoggi, at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey is due to a political hit job on President Donald J. Trump. As the argument goes, the media are pushing the story of Khashoggi's death as a way of embarrassing Trump; of making him look like a fool for having naively engaged an individual as evil as Mohammed bin Salman. In support of this theory, those promoting it point to the relative silence of that same media in response to the disgusting attack on the American embassy in Benghazi. In other words, if the media are so appalled at Khashoggi's murder, they ask, how come they weren't equally outraged at the murders of an American ambassador in Benghazi? Regardless of the validity of the question, I believe the theory is largely flawed, and more importantly, the observation wholly irrelevant. First, to the flaws in the theory. There is nothing naive about Trump. If there's anything the first two years of President Trump's presidency have taught us it is that the man is shrewd, astute, incredibly smart, and always at least one step ahead of the media and of his staunchest opponents. If President Trump engaged Saudi Arabia, it was because a very measured calculation led him to the conclusion that interacting with the regime was in the United States' best interests. Saudi Arabia is a massive regional economic partner with the United States, particularly in the arena of aviation and military equipment. And although the United States has achieved energy independence, Saudi Arabia continues to hold the keys to global oil prices and energy stability. Additionally, Saudi Arabia is arguably the most important nonjudeochristian regional partner of the United States in the Middle East, and its support in the defeat of Iran is of paramount importance. Second, although there's no question that the media are so obsessed with vilifying the President (and have already fabricated events to snub him), this factor alone is insufficient to explain the defensible level of indignation from the public and the press regarding the vile and evil murder of a foreign journalist. The truth of the matter is that what happened in Turkey was pure, unadultered evil, and we are right in expressing outrage. Which brings me to my second and more important point. Whether the press botched or concealed the news in Benghazi is wholly irrelevant to our response in Turkey. The United States, if it is to remain true to its foundational principles and its moral calling, must be indignant here because the vicious and clandestine assassination of a national in foreign soil by an oppressive regime is exactly the thing America is supposed to fight against. Don't get me wrong, the events in Benghazi were absolutely unconscionable, and the media did grossly and deceitfully mishandle its coverage. And I agree, they did it to protect then President Barrack Hussein Obama and their darling Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, from political damage. But our befuddlement at the Benghazi coverage leads us to rightly criticize the bias of the press and its disingenuousness. It does not dispel the authenticity and appropriateness of the present response to Khashoggi's murder. What's more, and even more importantly, we must continue to express outrage regarding this heinous, international and politically motivated crime because not doing so would place the rest of us in the same shoes in which the press stood nearly five years ago and continues to stand in today 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. One of the many fatalities of Hollywood's war on conservatism is the career of James Woods. Woods, presently the author of countless conservative tweets is a steeple amongst conservatives on Twitter. His commentary and retorts are bighting, witty, and when they need to be, merciless. But of course, his open display of his political positions has cast a stigma on his career as an actor. And Woods has said as much. In a tweet from February, Woods said he was blacklisted because he refused to back Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton. Then came word from Woods that The Gersh Agency, which represented him for a great part of his career, would not continue representing him because of his political views. And Twitter has not been accommodating to Woods, either. Despite having 1.79 million followers, Twitter banned him from his account after he tweeted a meme of three men enthusiastically proclaiming that they were going to make women's votes more powerful this election cycle by staying home on election day. #Genius! Twitter refused Woods access to his account unless he took down the meme. He refused. And he got his account back. But if his Twitter presence has been remarkable, his acting career has been even more so. Woods, known for his intensity on the screen and his ability to deliver expressions of sheer unbridled anger is one of the giants of modern film productions. Who can forget the Porsche scene in Against All Odds and the events surrounding it? And if you haven't seen The Specialist where Woods's character, Ned Trent, loses it while building a bomb in front of a trailer full of Miami police officers daring them to have him blow it up, then you've missed one of the greatest displays of controlled anger on film. Then there was his portrayal of the Machiavellian politician in Contact, who kept saying, "Continue," as he intently listened to the report of the missing 8-hours of data from a presumably failed, seconds-long, space mission in a vehicle that was the product of alien blueprint instructions. The missing time sequence was the exact amount that Jodie Foster's character, the astronaut that actually traveled in the craft, described as she toured the galaxy with an apparent alien. Woods's silent attention was followed by a single, sinister, controlled utterance from him, "That is interesting." But by far, my favorite Woods movie is True Believer where Woods plays a beat up, longhaired, has-been lawyer opposite Robert Downey, Jr. The movie opens with Downey entering the courtroom to meet Woods's character, Eddie Dodd, for the first time. Woods, his back to the camera, is seated at the defense table when Downey instinctively introduces himself to the shorthaired, well-manicured defendant seated next to him. When Woods actually responds, the audience is duped and falls victim to one of the great displays of irony and double-fakery in film. Few actors other than Woods would have been able to pull off this inherent contradiction in a character. But, as has become too frequent a case, Woods has been silenced, if not politically, on film. You would think that there would be someone so iconic, so magnificent, so great, that political bias would be insufficient to ostracize. Well, you'd be wrong. Yet Hollywood’s coercion was unable to silence Woods, merely to control the only thing it can about him, his career. But over the past week, there has been talk about a sitcom featuring Woods and another discarded actor, Roseanne Barr. Needless to say, I'd love to tune in to that sitcom. Not because of Barr who, although iconic in her own rate, is at best a mediocre actress. But because of Woods, a true giant amongst thespians! Mr. Woods, If you're gonna do this, then do it already! I'll go heat up the popcorn! 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. Forgive Me If I Don't Believe Saudi Arabia.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. The disappearance of Saudi Arabian nationalist and Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi from the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Turkey was a reprehensible event of immeasurable proportions. The repercussions are sending shockwaves across diplomatic communities in ways we had not previously contemplated. The tragedy began when Khashoggi presented himself to the Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey on October 2 seeking documentation in support of his upcoming wedding to his fiancé. Khashoggi had left Saudi Arabia because he had been highly critical of the country's 33 year-old Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman and feared for his continued safety in Saudi Arabia because of it. There are varying reports as to what transpired inside the consulate once Khashoggi arrived, and little evidence to confirm them. Claims exist of an audio recording from within the building indicating that Khashoggi was tortured, drugged, decapitated, and dismembered prior to having his remains clandestinely removed from the building. Supporting this contention is the arrival of Saudi Arabian agents in Turkey the day prior to the murder, the same agents who then made their way to the consulate. They left the consulate hours after Khashoggi's death and returned to Saudi Arabia shortly thereafter. At least one of them is a close associate of the Crown Prince. The United States has been caught on its heels over the events. The American government has been working zealously to improve relations with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, the same country from which the 9-11 terrorists proceeded, has been reaching out to American corporate leaders to engage in commercial ventures. Additionally, the United States has entered into a trade agreement with Saudi Arabia valued at over $100 billion in aviation exports. And perhaps most importantly, the Saudi government is figuring to be a key ally in the battle against Iran. Initially, the story looked like it was going to gain limited traction, but quickly, the horrific nature of the events attracted the attention of the news media, and shortly thereafter, members of Congress. The response of disbelief and disdain towards a regime that would actually engage in this type of activity has been overwhelming, but the Administration has been hesitant to act. Instead, President Donald Trump sent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Saudi Arabia seeking more information on the matter. Trump also reports having a conversation with the Crown Prince where the latter denied participation in Khashoggi's death. As is routine practice, many, including the President, have called for caution as we wait on Saudi Arabia to conduct its investigation on the events. There's only one problem with that call: I just don't believe anything Saudi Arabia says. First, despite his public facade of trying to promote progressive ideas within Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is known to be ruthless towards anyone who disagrees with his positions. Further, Saudi Arabia is a country that engages in corporal punishment of the worst kind. Amputation of the hands and feet are accepted punishments for robbery. Flogging is routinely employed for sexual deviance. Women are lashed for adultery even though in countless cases, they were actually the victims of rape. Saudi Arabia tortures it citizens and utilizes beheadings and crucifixions in its application of capital punishment. Moreover, in Saudi Arabia, there is no such thing as religious freedom even for none Sunni Islamic groups like Shia and Ismailis. Sharia law is the law of the land, and Christians are not only persecuted, they are beaten for praying in their own homes! And finally, the judicial system in Saudi Arabia is a joke. Arrestees are often not informed of the crime of which they are accused, not given access to a lawyer, and they often get tortured into confessing. Unquestionably, I appreciate the difficult situation in which the United States finds itself as a result of its efforts to improve ties with a murderous dictatorship, but forgive me if I don't give a lick of credence to anything Saudi Arabia has to say in this matter. And therein lies the rub. 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. Trading Continues Its Shaky Bounce Back.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. The stock market rallied back Tuesday after the beating it took a week ago by posting. On Tuesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average posted a 547.87 point gain while treasury notes closed 3.158%. The majority of the recovery sprung from corporate earnings data. Among these, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley posted healthy third quarter profits. But the big news of the day came from Netflix when it announced a gain of 7million new users, vastly surpassing the 5 million gain predicted by analysts. But concerns from the Asian markets and increasing interest rates in the upcoming two months continued to dog investors. In particular, discussions amongst members of the Federal Reserve of raising interest rates faster than previously planned chilled the market. By Wednesday morning the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 319 points, but gained back just under 200 of those points putting it on track to close about 100 points over the span of the day. Although the economy remains strong, the trajectory of the stock market over the next few weeks is likely to be determined by the balance of the strength of the market indicators and the threat of higher interest rates. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. A mere three weeks ago, the nation witnessed liberal groups and even some Democrat leaders argue that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh did not deserve a presumption of innocence. Still others argued that he did not even deserve the guarantees of due process. For the right, the contention was simply absurd, but many failed to see matters in the same light and passionately called for the disqualification of the judicial nominee simply based on the mere accusation of sexual assault and even rape, despite the absence of any corroborating evidence in support of the charges. The discussion was, quite frankly, surreal. In a separate twist, on October 12 America laid witness to another set of surreal events when American Pastor Andrew Brunson was released from house arrest and allowed to leave Turkey for the first time since being detained in 2016. By Saturday, Brunson was in the White House thanking President Donald Trump for his interventions and openly praying that God's wisdom fall upon the President. Interestingly, the evils that befell Brunson are the same ones against which right-winged Americans have been preciously guarding in protecting now-Justice Kavanaugh. In October 2016, Brunson and his wife, Norine, were summoned in Turkey to renew their visas. Upon their arrival, they were arrested. Their due process rights completely ignored, they were held without even being told what the charges against them were. Norine was released without explanation 13 days later, but Brunson continued to be held. It would not be until December 2016 when charges were formally brought against Brunson accusing him of being a member of an armed terrorist organization. And in August 2017, those charges were broadened to include charges of espionage, attempting to overthrow the Turkish parliament and government, and attempting change to change the constitutional order of Turkey. At no time were any of the charges against Brunson corroborated. There was no evidence that he was actually a terrorist, and no evidence that he, in any way, tried to overthrow the government. But those things did not matter because in Turkey, it's okay to bypass another's due process rights and to ignore another's presumption of innocence; precisely the road Democrats have been encouraging Americans to traverse. Brunson was held as part of a political ploy to use him as a pawn in an international game of chicken. His innocence was immaterial to his captors. Similarly, his release was part of a political ploy to improve relations between that country and the United States. Again, his guilt-or innocence-was immaterial. The only thing that mattered was the benefits to the Turkish government secured by his imprisonment and subsequently, by his release. Many argue that the status of civil liberties in the United States is far removed from those in Turkey. I agree. But if our Americans' civil liberties are protected, it is only because Americans demand that due process rights and innocence presumptions be honored. The road Democrats and the Kavanaugh protestors would put us on, although seemingly long, point directly to the reproduction of the events in Turkey here in the United States. And Americans can ill afford to take even one baby step in that direction. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. If you ever wondered what would happen when you put Kanye West and Donald Trump in the Oval Office together, last week undoubtedly gave you an indication. Their meeting was one of the most colorful displays of contrasting styles, differing perspectives, and looseness of association in recent memory. The show ended with a flamboyant hug behind the Resolute Desk from a spirited, stooped-over, Kanye West to an uncomfortable, seated Donald Trump, sealed with Kanye's proclamation of, "I love this guy!" Predictably, Kanye's hug was the talk of the nation, and it wasn't all positive. CNN's Don Lemon saw it as a moment when Kanye West was exploited and used by a white president. And the African American rapper, T.I., lashed out at West, exclaiming via social media, "This is the most repulsive, disgraceful, embarrassing act of desperation & auctioning off of one's soul to gain power I've ever seen. . . I feel compelled to slap the f***k outta you bro for the people!" Well, apparently, T.I. didn't look back far enough, because in reality, this has all happened before. Things were not good between Richard Nixon and the African American community back in 1971. First, he was a Republican, and the Democrats had just ransacked and passed the Civil Rights Act that had been originally pushed by Republicans. The view of the Republican Party as the Grand Ol' Civil Rights Party was abandoned as African Americans flocked to Lyndon B. Johnson and his War on Poverty. What's worse, Nixon was an awkward, white man. He had no spunk and had this awful tendency to accumulate sweat above his upper lip. His performance in front of the camera was so bad that a decade earlier, during his debate with John F. Kennedy, those who heard the event on radio called him the clear winner while those who saw it on television almost universally sided with Kennedy. Also, African Americans were not impressed with Nixon's first term as President. For starters, he had nominated two Southern judges to the Supreme Court, neither of whom was confirmed by the Senate. Second, unlike Lyndon B. Johnson with his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Robert C. Weaver, Nixon did not appoint any African Americans to his cabinet. And then there was the issue of the growing welfare state and Nixon's intent of cutting programs initiated by Johnson. In fact, in 1971, the animus towards Nixon was so intense that the Congressional Black Caucus boycotted his State of the Union address. Nixon recognized he needed an ally from the black community. He had been seen a few times with James Brown, but Brown was not a politically active individual. Sammy Davis Junior, on the other hand, was a "Cool Cat." He was an African American Jew and flaunted it. He had one fake eye and was proud of it. And he was the sole black member of the infamous Rat Pack! Besides, Sammy Davis, Jr. was The Candy Man! Who could ever dislike the man that could take the sunrise and sprinkle it with dew; and cover it with chocolate and a miracle or two? Astutely, Nixon asked Davis to be on his National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity. Davis, of course, was thrilled at the prospect. From his standpoint, he was being tasked to serve on a Committee by the President of the United States! What greater honor could there be for any American, particularly an African American Jew! Davis gladly met with the President at the White House to accept his position, a photo op for both men. Then Nixon asked Davis to appear in Vietnam before the troops, which he did, and then came to the White House to report to the President. Another photo op. Next thing he knew Sammy Davis Junior was appearing at Republican fundraisers, and singing! So, in the 1972, it was natural for Davis to be asked to participate in the Republican Nation Convention in Miami Beach. Davis enthusiastically accepted and that's how he found himself on stage before the Republican Youth Rally at the Playboy Hotel in Miami as the President of the United States arrived in the middle of his performance! Seeing Nixon walk on stage, Davis was naturally overwhelmed. He stopped, warmly introduced Nixon, and then, in the joy of the moment, gave the President a welcoming, warm, sideways hug! Immediately, the cameras blazed inscribing in black and white one of the 20th century's most impactful, interracial photographic moments. The picture, angled from the men's front-right, captured a stooped over Sammy Davis Junior with his left arm around the President and his right hand gripping Nixon's right forearm. The smiles on the two men's faces were genuine and beaming even though their poses-Davis's ever cool and Nixon's ever stiff-heralded their differences. Although the moment was genuine, the reaction from the left was vicious. The hatred towards Sammy Davis Junior was palpable as African Americans from all over the nation condemned him for adulating the President. He was accused of being used and manipulated by white people. In short, the left, despicably, turned Sammy Davis Junior, into a traitor to his race. Recognizing the vitriol, Davis's PR team went on offense. Sy Marsh, Davis's PR director, immediately reached out to one of the stalwarts of the Civil Rights movement and one of the most respected African American leaders in the country; Jesse Jackson. Remember, Jackson was at the balcony of the Lorraine Motel when Martin Luther King was brutally shot. The cameras would capture him as one of the men standing next to a dying King desperately pointing in the direction of the gunshots. Of course Jackson could salvage Davis's image! Or at least Marsh thought. At the time, Jackson was involved in an organization he developed, People United to Save Humanity (PUSH), and if Davis could bring $15,000.00 to the upcoming PUSH fundraiser in Chicago, Jackson would be happy to have Davis join him on stage. Marsh quickly scrounged up the money from the people who recurrently bailed Sammy Davis Junior from financial peril stemming from his drinking and drug use, the casino owners. The payment arranged, Davis showed up as planned, and here is how Wil Haygood, author of a 2003 Washington Post article named the "The Hug" describes it: And there [Davis] stood, preparing to join Jackson on that Chicago stage and navigate the swinging bridge of black-white relations that defined the '60s. "Sammy walks out," recalls Marsh, "and they booed him. Sammy is in a state of shock." Davis swung his head from side to side of the building, looking for the anger, the source of the boos. "It struck me as with physical force, knocking the wind out of me," Davis would recall. "It grew louder." Jackson seemed momentarily startled. He quickly flung his muscular arm around Davis. Jackson's ferocious embrace was so full of on-the-spot love it seemed to weaken Davis. He seemed to be shrinking inside his denim jacket. The boos and catcalls rained on. "Brothers," Jackson said, waving his arm for quiet, "if it wasn't for people like Sammy Davis, you wouldn't be here, we wouldn't have PUSH today. Now, I expected some foolish people were going to react like this because the man hugged the president of the United States. So what? Look at what this gigantic little man has committed himself to over all these years." As the boos erupted anew, Jackson realized he had underestimated the anger. Davis's body began twisting. He wanted to bolt. Jackson could feel his angst, and only held Davis tighter. Then he asked Davis to sing something, and suggested "I've Gotta Be Me." Given the circumstances, it was a request both funny and meaningful -- and perhaps Freudian. Davis had no time to ponder the meaning; he simply began singing. Words caught in his throat; there was snickering. Marsh felt terrible. "Sammy sang a song, came off, said, '. . . They don't want me. I don't want them.' He got blind drunk that night, and cried. What happened to Sammy Davis Junior is emblematic of the bullying tactics so characteristically employed by the left against anyone who dares to disagree with its position or who strolls outside of the confines of its stable. Sammy Davis Junior dared to venture outside of his predefined confines, and he paid for it dearly. Forever, he was called a whitey, and he was never acknowledged as the incredible credit he was to his race and to his country despite his many personality flaws. Now, 46 years later, Kanye West stands at the threshold of the same precipice. Hopefully, his treatment will be a lot gentler, but as we're witnessing from the conduct of Don Lemon and T.I., probably not. The author acknowledges WIl Haygood, "The Hug" The Washington Post, September 14, 2003, from which much of the factual content is obtained. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Pastor Andrew Brunson is the classic example of a person devoted to foreign service in the name of Christ. Since 1993, Brunson has lived in Turkey while preaching the Lord's word and performing humanitarian work with refugees. Turkey, of course, is a Muslim country, and the hostility towards Christianity has at times been palpable. Nevertheless, Brunson had been allowed to preach and practice his faith with little interference from Turkish authorities. But on August 28, 2014, Turkey changed with the induction of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as President. As Prime Minister, Erdogan had been largely viewed as relatively tolerant of Christianity and religious freedoms. However, as his tenure progressed he became increasingly despotic. By the time he became President, Erdogan had become strongly Muslim-centric and hostile to the position of Christians in his country. On July 15, 2016, things went from bad to worse when a coup d'état attempt took place in Turkey. Erdogan was able to reassert control of the government and followed through with a tough containment campaign designed to rid the country of any potential enemies. It was against this backdrop that Brunson and his wife, Norine, were summoned to renew their visas in October 2016. When they arrived at the appropriate agency, instead of working on their visa renewal process, they were arrested and held without formal charges. While Norine was released 13 days later, Brunson continued to be held. In December 2016, charges of being a member of an armed terrorist organization were finally brought against Brunson, and in August 2017, they were broadened to include charges of espionage, attempting to overthrow the Turkish parliament and government, and attempting change to change the constitutional order of Turkey. The charges were largely viewed as absurd. One Turkish pastor stated, "Andrew is not a spy. It's a political case." In a court appearance, Brunson deniedthe charges and demanded "an explanation as to when, where and how [he] conducted espionage." In the meantime, and still during the tenure of President Barack Obama, the Turkish government accused Mr. Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish cleric living in Philadelphia as being the mastermind of the coup against Erdogan. The United States responded by denying Turkey's extradition request on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The Trump Administration began working on the case early in its tenure. It helped that Jay Sekulow, the radio figure and member of President Donald Trump's personal legal team, had been representing Brunson. In the media, talk of a possible exchange began. In May 2017, Erdogan visited President Trump in the White House where the conversation centered on both countries' resolve to fight ISIS, put an end to the Syrian conflict, and trade expansion. As part of what President Trump described as "long and hard discussions," Erdogan and Trump spoke about Turkey's desire to have Gülen extradited and the United States' concern about Brunson, but essentially, no progress was made. Relations between Turkey and the United States would continue to deteriorate as Turkey, a NATO nation, announced its intent to purchase the S-400 missile defense system from Russia, a clear affront to America's effort at placing trade sanctions upon Russia. The decision outragedmembers of the Senate who introduced legislation that would suspend the sale of F-35s to Turkey. Additionally, on August 1, 2018, the U.S. sanctioned two Turkish ministers involved in Brunson's detention, and President Trump made clear his intent to impose further sanctionsagainst the ostensible ally if Brunson was not released. In July, after a NATO meeting, Erdogan and Trump were all smiles and fist bumpsleading to speculation that perhaps progress had been made, but hopes of a rapid release of the American pastor dwindled as the Turkish courts scheduled a hearing in October. During the United Nations General Assembly meeting there was yet another, albeit brief, exchange between Presidents Trump and Erdogan with no word about any consensus regarding Brunson. But then, a possible break in the impasse occurred in September when President Erdogan intimatedthat if the Turkish courts were willing, a release could be arranged. In the days leading up to the October hearing, rumors swirled that perhaps Brunson would be released. In the hours leading to the October 12 hearing, news rapidly improved. Three government witnesses that had been prepared to testify against Brunson recanted. Suddenly, there was no longer a case against the American pastor, and the court discontinued Brunson's house arrest. Brunson was then quickly taken to the airport and flown out of Turkey, to land in the United States on Saturday following a brief stop in Germany. Clearly, multiple factors went into Andrew Brunson's release from Turkish prison. But one thing is certain; the Turkish pastor who observed that Brunson's arrest was "a political case" was proven correct. Once again, Trump's aggressive tactics and diplomatic style went a long way towards securing Brunson's release, a fact that did not escape the eye of Franklin Graham, President and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. In an interview on Saturday with "America's News Headquarters," Graham observed that Brunson would have been held in Turkey for the rest of his life if it were not for Donald Trump. He may well be correct. 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. 10/15/2018 The Florida Supreme Court Increases The Stakes of The State's Gubernatorial Race.Read Nowby
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. In a move with significant implications to Florida's gubernatorial election, the Florida Supreme Court granted an order sought by the League of Women Voters of Florida prohibiting Governor Rick Scott from naming the successors to three Supreme Court justices scheduled to retire on the same day the Governor relinquishes power to his own successor. Unlike the federal Constitution, the Florida Constitution requires Supreme Court justices retire once they reach the age of seventy, except that the retiring justices may continue to serve until the last day of their term; the same day the governor's term ends. Additionally, a Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) provides the governor between three and six nominees from which to choose their successors. The JNC is supposed to offer recommendations to the governor within 30 days of the occurrence of the vacancy, and the governor is to appoint his choice within sixty days of certification of the nominations to the governor by the JNC. Article V, Section 20(c)(5) of the Florida Constitution describes the required make up of the board and states that each member of the board serves for four years such that the same JNC members who are presently serving will be serving at the time the new governor takes office. In Florida, three of the seven Supreme Court justices are scheduled to term out on January 8. Governor Scott argues that he ought to be making the appointments in keeping with the established precedent of appointing judges in such a manner so as to avoid vacancies. In anticipation of the deadline, Scott instructed the JNC to have its nominations on his desk by November 10. But the Court disagreed. In an unsigned order, the Court said that the authority for filling vacancies lies solely with the governor who is elected in the November 2018 election, meaning the winner of the contest between Republican Ron Desantis and Democrat Andrew Gillum. What's more, the Court said that the JNC did not need to comply with the Governor's November 10 deadline. The Court wasamenable to hearing arguments regarding the time by which the JNC needed to certify its recommendations to the Governor. Who gets to select the next three justices to the Florida Supreme Court is important not only because of the sheer number of appointments, but because the balance of power in the Court hangs on the ballot. At this time, the Florida Supreme Court carries a 4-3 edge of liberals over conservatives. All three retiring justices are liberal. It is safe to presume then, that if DeSantis wins, the Court will have a 6-1 conservative majority, but if he should lose, the liberal Court will keep its 4-3 lead with perhaps an even more liberal slant considering Gilluim's strongly leftist positions. What effect a JNC appointed by a conservative governor can have in controlling the political slants of a new, liberal governor's judicial appointments remains to be determined. One thing is clear, however, the stakes of the Florida gubernatorial race just got a lot higher. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. October is traditionally a scary month in Wall Street, and this October was no exception when the markets took a tumble to the tune of an over 1000 points loss last week, or about 4%. More specifically,the Dow dropped from 26,340.57 on October 9 to 25025.07 on October 11 with Friday seeing a small increase in the close. Now, the question in everyone's mind is what will the Dow do next? It is a question of great import, not only for investors, but also for political observers who mull the implications of the market's performance on the midterm elections. The issue is resonating even with President Donald Trump as he took to the airwaves to question the wisdom of the actions of the Federal Reserve. For Trump, the market sell-off was a direct result of an excessively aggressive increase in interest rates by the Feds. In point of fact, and despite the media's recent obsession with the sell off, last week's events do not likely represent the beginning of a massive downturn in the market. For one, the salutatory effects of the Republicans’ tax reduction have been too great. Further, economic growth is 3% versus one year ago, and the unemployment rate is at a 49 year low of 3.7%. In the meantime, inflation is 2%, a relatively healthy position. And the return on 10-year Treasury notes is 3.1% and on an upward trend, all of which tend to point to a robust, resilient market. Of course, all sorts of developments may steer the market southward. The Asian markets are taking a beating, particularly, China's, which is down 30% from February. Moreover, America's economic growth could stop. Inflation could spiral up under the effects of America's tariffs and the competitiveness of our labor markets. And of course, any unforeseen development in the world stage could throw everything off. But in reality the American economy is in about as strong a position as it could be at this point in our history. Regardless, this week will be interesting from the economic side, as 55 major companies will be releasing their earning reports. By far, the most significant day of the week is tomorrow when, among others, Netflix will be reporting. If anything, these reports may provide some insight as to the personality of the final quarter of 2018. Either way, the worst thing an investor or political observer can do at this point is read too much into last week's events. The wisest approach here, as is the case in so many other circumstances, is to stay the course and keep a watchful eye. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Kanye West visited President Donald Trump at the White House Thursday, appearing with football legend, Jim Brown, at the Oval Office. The meeting, designed to bring attention to prison reform, took a dramatic turn when West engaged in a protracted monologue covering topics such as his love for President Trump, the power of the MAGA hat, and the link between welfare and the Thirteenth Amendment. Needless to say, the speech, which was all over the map, was vintage Kanye, inclusive of a few bad words that ought not be uttered in a public forum held at the Oval Office. His pro-Trump style should have come as no surprise as West has stood out amongst celebrities for his unbridled support of the President. The media and members of the press have often criticized his position, but this time, as the left has been prone to do recently, they went way too far. Tara Setmeyer, a CNN news analyst called West "an attention whore, just like the president." Donald Lemon audaciously said West was, "the token negro for the Trump administration." And former Congressman Bakari Sellers disgustingly quipped that West "is what happens when negroes don't read." Still others have claimed that West, a self-made billionaire, is mentally ill and exploited by the President. Sadly, their response has been emblematic of the left's approach to political discourse in this country, and Americans should pay careful attention to it. The past few months have seen Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders kicked out of a restaurant merely for being her. More recently, Senator Ted Cruz and his wife were harassed at a Washington, D.C. restaurant while having dinner to the point where he had to be taken to a back room until the "activists" could be removed. And of course, we all saw the disgusting display of arrogance and destruction displayed to a judicial nominee with an absolutely impeccable personal and professional record by the Democrat members of the Senate and Democrats nationwide. Apparently, Former Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton believes this approach to political discourse is defensible as she declared that she could not be civil towards a political party that is trying to destroy those things she stands for. Former Attorney General Eric Holder was quick to join the choir by encouraging Democrats to "kick" Republicans when they go low. Clearly the Democratic Party has crossed the line from impassioned speech to destructive behavior. Its willingness to take debates on policy to the level of personal insults, character assassinations, racist slurs, and intimidation is uncalled for and destructive to the fabric of the nation. But really, isn't this horrible behavior just par for the course for the Democratic Party? Despite a few years' respite where it pretended to be the Party of Civil Rights, tolerance, and civility, the Democratic Party has now returned to its fundamentals; ones rooted in slavery, Jim Crow laws, and intolerance. How quickly we forget that the Democratic Party defended slavery in the South and then, after losing an absolutely unnecessary war, solidly planted its flag on the gorge of continued racism and segregation. Yes, the Democrats cooled it for a while when they fooled minorities into believing that they cared about them by passing Civil Rights legislation during a Democrat Administration, legislation pushed by Republicans. But now, it is beginning to appear that their pro-tolerance position was merely temporary. Make no mistake, elitism, divisiveness, and intimidation are the Democrats' key weapons, and they use them liberally. Why? Because it is the party of Progressivism, which contains, at its core, the idea that they have all the right answers because they are the experts. Anyone who dares stand in their way is merely ignorant and should not be heard. This whole deterioration in the Democrats' agenda and the exposure of their true character brings up a very timely question for Americans this midterm election cycle: are these really the people we want in power? Is this really the direction in which we wish to take our Great Experiment? On November 6, we will learn the answer. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. In an interviewwith Christiane Amanpour Tuesday, former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, raised the level of her animus towards Republicans by saying, "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for." The comment has sparked a national discussion about Democrats' recently acquired propensity to discard civility in favor of violence and bullying tactics. Some, like former Attorney General Eric Holder have supported Mrs. Clinton by suggesting that when Republicans go low, Democrats should "kick them." While others, like Senator Heidi Heitkamp, have called such comments "ridiculous." From my standpoint, the statement begs another question. If Hillary Clinton in referring to the Republican Party says she cannot be civil because it is trying to destroy those things for which she stands, then what exactly is it that Mrs. Clinton stands for? According to the Republican Party's platform, it stands for American exceptionalism. It affirms the concepts put forth in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and that amongst these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It believes that freedom and economic freedom are indivisible. It believes that people, not government, are the greatest stewards of our God-given resources. Republicans wish for peace and insist on strength to guarantee it. It seeks friendship with all peoples and all nations, and it is devoted to the support of the men and women of our military, our law enforcement officers, and our first responders. And what are Republicans trying to destroy? They are trying to destroy all remnants of racism and discrimination. They are trying to combat socialism and collectivist philosophies whose aim it is to destroy personal liberties. The Republican Party is trying to destroy anti-Semitism. It is trying to destroy oppression, especially if that oppression stemming from ignorance. It is trying to destroy unwarranted violence, lawlessness, and anarchy. So, after reviewing the things for which the Republican Party stands and those it adamantly opposes, the question for Mrs. Clinton is: exactly what are those things that she stands for that she believes the Republican Party is trying to destroy? Really. It's an honest question. If you can't be civil with a party that is destroying those things for which you stand, and that party is the Republican Party, then what exactly do you stand for that would be so onerous to Republicans that they are out to destroy it? And please, Mrs. Clinton, don't cop out by fashioning your response while including the words "President," or "Donald," or "Trump," because the things that Republicans stand for as well as those they are trying to destroy are much bigger than any one person. At the very least, they are certainly bigger than the disdain any person may have for another. So, please, Mrs. Clinton, answer the question. I eagerly await your response. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. On February 29, 1960, Dr. Martin Luther King was arrested in Alabama on two counts of perjury for allegedly filing false state income tax returns. In response, and believing the case to be without merit, two groups, the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and The Struggle For Freedom In The South, were formed with the aim of assisting Dr. King with the funding of his defense. On March 29, 1960, these two groups published a 10-paragraph advertisement in The New York Times with the aim of collecting such funds. The advertisement contained a description of multiple grievances that had occurred against the members of the black community in Montgomery. A number of the events depicted in the advertisement contained minor errors of fact while others were grossly inaccurate. For example, the advertisement contended that black students had demonstrated before the steps of the State Capitol while singing "My Country, Tis of Thee." In actuality the students sang the National Anthem. In another more egregious reference, the students were said to have been padlocked in the dining hall of the Alabama State College Campus by the Montgomery police when they had not. Although the advertisement did not refer to City Public Safety Commissioner L. B. Sullivan by name or title, he contended that he was nevertheless libeled, as any false reference against the Montgomery police essentially referred to him, as its supervisor. Sullivan sued The New York Times and others for $500,000.00, the maximum allowable for libel in state court, and won. The case was appealed to the federal court and eventually reached the Supreme Court of the United States in 1964. What resulted was a landmark case in American jurisprudence and the principal reason for the state of disrepair of American political discourse. In New York Times, v. Sullivan, the Court placed great weight on the inherent ability of truth to naturally prevail. Seeing that erroneous statements are "inevitable in free debate," the Court refused to uphold the libel charge brought forth from the lower court. Instead, it held that the importance of supporting "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate that may include "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials" was more important than any protections it could give to public officials. The Supreme Court consequently reversed the lower court's ruling and imposed a new standard for successful libel actions against public officials. According to the Court, in order for a public official to prevail in a libel action it must show that the defendant acted "with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not," a standard known as "actual malice," or "New York Times malice." Although accepted as bedrock in American jurisprudence dealing with public figures and elected officials, this case has been the source of great discussion amongst legal scholars. Is this near-impossible standard too high? Was the Court's fear of self-censorship justified, or does the press and political opponents need a little self-restraint? Is the OK Corral attitude of the Court the better approach, or does such a cavalier attitude muddy speech and make the situation worse for voters? To this day, consensus on these questions has not been reached. Fast forward 54 years to 2018 when a judge by the name of Brett Kavanaugh is nominated for a position in the Supreme Court of the United States. The man has an impeccable record as an adult, as a judge, and as a professional. He is one of the most revered and respected persons in his field. But at stake are the philosophical balance of the Court and the future of landmark abortion cases such as Roe v. Wade. Predictably, Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing goes near flawlessly and his confirmation virtually sealed. But all of a sudden, after the conclusion his confirmation hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, a completely unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusation regarding his alleged conduct as a 17-year-old high school student (some 36 years prior) is brought against him. The accuser claims that Kavanaugh had engaged in a sexual assault against her at a party when she was 15 years of age. Within days, other stories surfaced. Stories alleging that as a college student at Yale University, Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female student while they were both intoxicated at a dorm party. Again, no corroboration existed. And then there was another story of how Kavanaugh had been involved in drugged-out gang raping activities in high school parties in Maryland, but not a single piece of evidence substantiated the charge After a vile and disgusting display of deceit and political theater that gripped the nation and forever tarnished his reputation, Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed in the closest judicial confirmation vote in American history. But Kavanaugh was not alone in falling victim to the predatory tactics enabled by the elevated burden of proof inherent to the New York Timesmalice standard. All over the country, candidates have attacked their opponents with false and misleading accusations. And because the judicial system offers littler refuge in these cases, unless the victims of these attacks are able to find sufficient funding to successfully ward them off, their reputations are smeared and their races brought to an end. And thus begins the endless barrage of negative campaign ads and misleading accusations. I should know; it happened to me; twice! President Donald Trump has also fallen victim to these vicious attacks, except, in his case, it is the media that has been waging its propaganda war. Frustrated, the President has repeatedly called for an adjustment in the nation's libel laws, most recently in comments relating to Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation process. But in reality what needs to happen is an adjustment of New York Times malice. Enter Justice Kavanaugh, now a sitting member of the Supreme Court of the United States and flanked by another victim of kavanaughing, Justice Clarence Thomas. Having both been survivors of horrible and ruthless political denigration tactics, it stands to reason that these two justices would be much more sympathetic to protections against false and malicious speech against public officials than prior justices. Suddenly, there's a new question for legal scholars and political observers alike: with two victims of egregiously false political speech sitting on the bench, a frustrated public, and a disgruntled President, will the Court be willing to take an ax to New York Times malice and restore a certain level of self-imposed responsibility upon the deliverers of political speech? I'm predicting we will soon find out. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, announced Tuesday that she would be resigning from her position effective at the end of this year. The news came as a surprise to everyone, except President Trump who apparently learned of her intentions on October 3rd. The announcement prompted a press conference featuring the President and Haley. According to Haley, the resignation was motivated simply by her realization that it was time for her to leave, denying that there were any pressures or dissatisfactions prompting her decision. In a jibe to the press corps, Haley preempted questions regarding a run for President by dismissing the notion before it was even posed. "No, I am not running for 2020," she quipped. "I can promise you I will be campaigning for this one," she continued, pointing at the President. Ambassador Haley's resignation signals the passage of one of the most effective tenures in that position in modern American history. Sometimes singlehandedly, Ms. Haley forcefully made America's case for its support of Israel. She negotiated the United States through the rough waters of its move of the American embassy to Jerusalem. Haley also found herself defending her country against the backlash caused by its withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the initial global skepticism stemming from President Trump's public and confrontational interactions with North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Un; a.k.a. "Rocket Man." Haley leaves at a time with her popularity and admiration from a grateful nation at its pinnacle. She leaves with the promise of a future only limited by her desires and her imagination. Although I am sure we will learn more about the dynamics of her decision in the coming weeks, her departure, even if temporary, signals a great loss for her country. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Now that the Senate, with the aid of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has completed its confirmation process of Justice Brett Kavanugh, the question is what, if anything, does it have to do next? In light of the fact that a 36 year old story was brought to the Senate for its serious consideration regarding a judicial nominee absent any corroborating information or evidence, the question that many have is whether this was the result of a good faith presentation, or was it a concerted effort to disrupt the nomination process and derail the appointment of a qualified judicial nominee? If the answer to this question is a negative, then there is no further action to be taken. But, after all the shenanigans, all the posturing, and all the insults, the reality is that absent an investigation, there is no way of knowing. And if the allegations were brought forth merely for political expediency or personal gain, then the nomination process will have been placed under great peril for no valid reason, something the Senate cannot allow. The Senate may begin with Senator Diane Feinstein. Senator Feinstein allegedly came to learn of Ford's allegations through a letter she received from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo in July. According to the Senate testimonies, by the time she met with Judge Kavanaugh, Senator Feinstein was already in possession of this letter and had even assisted Dr. Ford in obtaining a lawyer. Amazingly, Senator Feinstein did not bring up the allegation with Kavanaugh during their July 20th meeting. Also of great interest is the comment Ford made during her testimony indicating that Feinstein and she had agreed to keep her letter confidential until the end of the hearing. It was a comment that Arizona Attorney Rachel Mitchell was in the process of developing when Blaisey Ford's attorneys hurriedly interjected. If Senator Feinstein withheld material information from the Senate Judiciary Committee for over a month with the specific intent of railroading the confirmation process, then Feinstein's actions represent the most egregious of ethical breaches. For these reasons, her role in the presentation of Dr. Ford's testimony must be brought to light. The other question is the role of Monica McLean. McLean is a life long friend of Dr. Ford's and a 24-year FBI operative who quit the agency about six months prior to President Donald Trump's inauguration. McLean's role in the development of Ford's story is certainly suspect. Bear in mind that McLean lives in Delaware, which is where Ford was when she wrote the letter to Eshoo. Additionally, McLean is the person who was identified by another friend of Dr. Ford's, Ms. Leland Keyser, as the person who had tried to pressure her into changing her testimony. Such a change in testimony would have been very important since, up to that point, Kelly, who had been identified as one of the four people to have witnessed Kavanaugh's alleged assault on Ford, said she had no recollection of such a gathering nor did she know Judge Kavanagh. It was McLean who allegedly received the coaching from Dr. Blaisey Ford on taking polygraphs, a contention McLean denies. If true, the finding would make Ford's testimony before the Senate not credible since she told the Committee that she did not know anything about polygraph tests. If it was learned that Ford had so much familiarity with polygraph testing that she was able to coach others on how to take one, Ford's credibility would seriously suffer as would the validity of the polygraph results. Finally, it is interesting that McLean was one of the few acquaintances of Dr. Ford who was present at the Senate hearing. Undoubtedly, the Senate must find out the truth regarding Dr. Ford's testimony. If indeed, the events of the last two weeks were the result of a concerted effort at derailing the nomination process, then the Senate must punish those nefarious actors supporting it, and just as importantly, it must take steps to prevent such a destructive orchestration from ever happening again. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. The Democratic Candidate for New York's 14th Congressional District, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, continued to display her less than superior intelligence on Saturday when she tweeted that the Electoral College was a "shadow of slavery's power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic." There are many reasons one could validly employ in arguing that the Electoral College ought not be used in selecting the President. Those arguments include the underrepresentation of urban areas and the apparent inconsistency of a victorious president who fails to win the popular vote. I understand these arguments and am willing to debate against them. But claiming that the Electoral College represents some outcrop of slavery is not merely an immensely unsubstantiated charge, its promotion serves only to reveal its proponent's complete ignorance. The Electoral College is a method by which the President of the United States is elected that employs electoral votes instead of popular votes. Those electoral votes are loosely proportional to each state's population and serve to grant slightly greater weight to those less populous states; states that tend to be more agrarian in nature. The Electoral College is an outcrop of the tension between those larger, more commercial states and those smaller, more agrarian states at the time of our nation's founding. Although those states were largely separated by latitudes back then, today the battle lines are more properly drawn between the urban coastal centers and the nation's agrarian midsection, erasing whatever shadows Ms. Ocasio-Cortez may be divining. Moreover, the selection of the Electoral College as the system by which the President is chosen springs from the philosophical presumption that the President of the United States answers to the states. It is because he or she is subservient to the states that the states ought to be given the responsibility of electing the President. This concept was a foundational precept for the nation's creation. But if her wildly erroneous comment about the Electoral College and slavery's power were insufficient to demonstrate her ignorance, her charge that it "undermines our nation as a democratic republic" does. The Electoral College is the centerpiece of our republican system of government because it places an extra tier of representation within the democratic process. Not only is each state a republican system of government, but also by making sure that the states elect the President, we have essentially created a second republic. This concept of multiple republics under the auspices of a larger one is the essence of federalism and provides an extra layer of protection for the minority. For Ocasio-Cortez not to recognize these concepts as the Democratic candidate in a general election defies belief. Quite frankly, the notion that any district within this great Republic would ever cast its vote for her is even more inexplicable. 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
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. The United States was handed yet another snub by the United Nations on Wednesday when its International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered it to undue those sanctions against Iran that would interfere with the importation of humanitarian goods and services to that country. Specifically, the court ordered the United States to remove those sanctions dealing with "medicine and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities and spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation." The United States immediately cried foul with John Bolton, the United States National Security Advisor, pointing out that the ICJ had allowed itself to be used "as a forum for propaganda" by Iran. Iran contended that the United States' actions of reinstating sanctions in May were in breach of the Treaty of Amity signed in 1955 between Dwight D. Eisenhower and King Mohammad Reza Shah. This treaty included an arbitration agreement of sorts that would make the ICJ the arbiter of any disputes between the two nations. But the sanctions dispute was not the only contention made by Iran before the ICJ. It also arguedthat the United States had acted illegally in unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear accord, a charge the ICJ rejected. However, the ICJ sided unanimously with Iran in its contentions regarding sanctions against products and services necessary for humanitarian aid. The ruling also declared that the international community viewed the reimposition of sanctions by the United States as illegal. United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded by immediately withdrawing the United States from the Treaty and activating its one-year termination clause under Article XXIII. In the meantime, Bolton contended that the Treaty could not be considered in force in light of Iran's hostile behavior towards the United States and the community of nations. "Iran is a rogue regime," he said. "It has been a threat throughout the Middle East, not only for its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, but it's (sic) acted for several decades as the central banker for international terrorism." Of course, Bolton is correct in his assertion. Article I of the Treaty calls for "a firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship between the United States of America and Iran," a provision that was permanently and irreversibly violated by Iran with the swarming of the American Embassy and the taking of American hostages for 444 days in 1979. Among others, that act of hostility violated numerous other provisions of the Treaty designed to guarantee the rights and safety of the nationals and companies in Iran. Additionally, Iran's numerous actions of hostility towards the United States and its regional neighbors have cut to shreds any semblance of a treaty. Regardless, because the Treaty still exists on paper, the ICJ decided to honor it, thus giving the Iranian regime ammunition with which to call the United States "an outlaw regime." In light of the irreparable deterioration of relations between the two countries and the widespread disregard of the provisions of the Treaty, it is amazing that the United States did not withdraw years ago, an observation that did not escape John Bolton. "Given this history and Iran's abuse of the ICJ, we will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction and dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice." It's high time we did. 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. |
Details
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.Dr. Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon and lawyer who served as State Representative for South Sarasota County in Florida for four years. He is the author of Heathcare Reform: The Truth, The Federalist Pages, and The Case for Free Market Healthcare. Archives
April 2019
Categories |