Physicians Increasingly Losing Control of Medicine 
by 
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
What is likely the most significant development in healthcare is also one that most will not see reported.  A survey from the American Medical Association has found, for the first time, that the majority of physicians in the United States work outside physician-owned practices.  According to the AMA, only 49.1% of doctors work in physician-owned practices, a drop of 5 percentage points from the prior survey performed in 2018 and an 11% drop from 2012 when the number was 60%. The egress was mostly towards hospital-controlled practices or direct hospital employment, which now comprise 40% of physicians' practices. 
 
Interestingly, there is a new addition to physician employment: practice ownership by private equity firms.  In a survey choice the AMA had not previously offered, 4% of physicians indicated they worked in a practice owned by a private equity firm.  In 2018, although the choice was not directly offered, the relationship was identified amongst 2% of the responders who marked "other" and then wrote "private equity firm" as their employer.  
 
The trend is significant beyond the obvious implication of who controls a person's healthcare.  When physicians were the primary owner of medical practices, the relationship between patients and their doctors tended to be more intimate and personal.  There was much less room for intervention by administrators and CFOs whose primary interest was the company's bottom line.  Additionally, when the physician owned the practice, there was no doubt as to where the decision-making buck stopped. Now, there are many more hidden layers to healthcare, such as corporate interests and the zeal with which hospitals rush to comply with regulatory requirements.  
 
But below the surface there is perhaps a much more pernicious force. Medicine's professional organizations such as the AMA (the ones that are supposed to represent the practice of medicine) have increasingly been undermined by interests outside of science and patient advocacy.  Rather, because its members are increasingly employed by corporations and non-healthcare providers, their positions on healthcare increasingly representing the hospital and the corporation.  The overall pressure is to place healthcare decisions further away from the patients' hands and nestle them within those of the hospitals.  
 
Dr. Jane Orient, the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons observes, "The corporate practice of medicine has long been considered unethical and illegal." 

Today, it is increasingly in danger of becoming the norm.  
 
 
Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you.   Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including  The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 ​

The Way Out of This Mess Is Through the Holy Spirit
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.


Watch the news and what do you see? Riots. People yelling at each other with hatred and malice. People disrespecting police officers and not obeying their legal orders. Police officers shooting people. People shooting police officers. There may be no formal declaration of war, but clearly, it is a war zone out there.

For years, we, as a country, have been getting deeper and deeper into this rut, and for years, we have been failing to work our way out of it. In fact, things have gotten worse. Our solutions have come from the ideas of man. They have been the opinions of our policy "experts", economists, and politicians. And where has it gotten us?

Yesterday, I was going over the words of the "Twelve Days of Christmas." That catchy, iconic Christmas tune, it is said, was actually a code for through which oppressed Catholics in England could remember Christian dogma. For example, the twelve drummers drumming represent the twelve points of the Apostles Creed; the eleven pipers piping are the eleven apostles minus Judas Iscariot; and the ten lords a leaping represent the Ten Commandments.

The nine ladies dancing are particularly applicable to today's agitations. They represent the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are represented by the seven swans a swimming. The gifts of the Holy Spirit, as the name implies, are given to man freely, as a present. As such, they are graces given to us through the Holy Spirit. These gifts are wisdom (sapienta), understanding (intellectus), counsel (consilium), fortitude (fortitudo), knowledge (congitō), piety (pietas), and fear of the Lord (timor Domini). (parentheses in Latin)

The fruits of the Holy Spirit are different. They represent not free gifts given to man, but rather the fruits that we harvest through our faith and our allegiance to God. They come from Chapter 5 of St. Paul's letter to the Galatians. They are nine: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-restraint. Even more fascinating is the direct applicability of the words written by St. Paul in this capacity: "For freedom Christ set us free, so stand firm and do not again submit to the yoke of slavery . . . For you were called for freedom, brothers, but do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather serve one another through love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' But if you go biting and devouring one another, beware that you are not consumed by each other."

And isn't this exactly what we are doing, biting and devouring each other? With our hatred and our rhetoric aimed not at solving problems but at injuring those about whom we speak, are we not consuming each other with our hatred and our bitterness?

It is simply remarkable that a man writing nearly two thousand years ago could be so detailed and accurate in describing the state of our collective existence. Not only are we living out the very reality against which he warned us, we are consumed by the works that Paul said go against the Spirit. Tell me if any of this describes what you're seeing in the news today: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, and orgies. If they do, then take a moment to marvel at Paul's foresight because they are exactly the improprieties he listed in Chapter 5 verses 19 through 21.

The essence of our inherent failure is that we have been trying to solve problems stemming from moral apathy and the rejection of God with policies and laws. No legal corpus will ever solve defects so central to our existence as our agnosticism. Only through a return to a life by the Spirit can we rectify the desperate condition in which we find ourselves. If we did, then we would approach our worldly challenges through the fruits we would have harvested from the Holy Spirit. Specifically, we would be solving the problems that afflict us using love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-restraint

Today, it is not enough that we make a solemn pledge for each of us to "live by the Sprit." Rather we must demand that our schools, our markets, our courts, and our legislatures follow the Spirit as well. It would be a radical departure from the techniques employed by twentieth and twenty-first century man. But doesn't the approach pointed out to us by Paul and offered by the Spirit promise to be much better than the ones we're employing now?


Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you. Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages.


Click Here to View More Articles and Our Podcasts.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.

I Saw You Under the Fig Tree
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
They said she was a lunatic, and with good reason.  Her gaunt, filthy, underfed wrists were shackled to the cold, lifeless stone behind her.  Her feet, too, were bound.  And it wasn't because she had committed some treacherous crime.  As best we know, this girl was neither a murderess, nor a thief, nor even an adulteress.  No. This girl was permanently shackled for her own safety and the safety of those around her, for she was a demoniac. 
 
She was also the princess, daughter of the Hindu Viceroy of Kalyan named Pulumayi and niece of King Aristakarman of the Stavahanan dynasty (37-62). To the untrained ears of the contemporary west, the Viceroy was called Polymius and the King's polysyllabic name was bastardized to Astreges.  
 
Presumably, the Viceroy had tried everything he could to knock the demon out of the young, enchained princess.  They had tried herbs, no doubt.  They had invoked charms.  They had attempted to restrain her using gentler methods, and they had even prayed to their god Astaruda that was supposed to have healing powers for the sick and the infirmed and whom the westerners called Astaruth.  But their efforts were to no avail.  The princess's condition progressed to the point where she was maiming herself with her teeth and bighting those around here.
 
And it wasn't just the princess who was not benefiting from the appeals for divine intervention.  The people of Kalyan were also suffering from "maladies, violence, infirmities, and much affliction."  Previously, the people had been able to pray to Astaruth with some relief, but not now. Frustrated, they turned to the "demon Becher," which may actually have been the Hindu god Bachiran, to ask him why the Astaruth was no longer answering their pleas.  
 
Bachiran responded that Astaruth himself had been ensnared.  Ever since the one true Almighty God sent Bartholomew, one of the apostles of Jesus Christ, Astaruth had been rendered powerless. Find him, Becher pleaded, and tell him to leave so that both Astaruth and he could once again be set free.  
 
Immediately, the people searched for Bartholomew.  According to Becher, "He ha[d]black hair, a shaggy head, a fair skin, large eyes, beautiful nostrils, his ears hidden by the hair of his head, with a yellow beard, a few grey hairs, of middle height, and neither tall nor stunted, but middling, clothed with a white undercloak bordered with purple, and upon his shoulders a very white cloak; and his clothes have been worn twenty-six years, but neither are they dirty, nor have they grown old. Seven times a day he bends the knee to the Lord, and seven times a night does he pray to God. His voice is like the sound of a strong trumpet; there go along with him angels of God, who allow him neither to be weary, nor to hunger, nor to thirst; his face, and his soul, and his heart are always glad and rejoicing; he foresees everything, he knows and speaks every tongue of every nation. And behold now, as soon as you ask me, and I answer you about him, behold, he knows; for the angels of the Lord tell him; and if you wish to seek him, if he is willing he will appear to you; but if he shall not be willing, you will not be able to find him."
 
Bartholomew's Long and Distant Voyage
 
The people of Kalyan did find St. Bartholomew.  He had come to southern Asia to spread the word of the Lord.  
 
Distance was no longer foreign to Bartholomew, as he had already traveled long and far to share with the world the good news.  Indeed, the words Jesus addressed to him when they first met had been quite prophetic.  
 
Bartholomew, which translates to "son of Talmai" was also known as Nathaniel. He was introduced to Jesus Christ by his good friend from Bethsaida, Philip.  According to Gospel of John, Philip heralded the discovery of Jesus Christ to Bartholomew by saying, “We have found the one about whom Moses wrote in the law, and also the prophets, Jesus son of Joseph, from Nazareth.”
 
Bartholomew's response was as immediate as it was flippant, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” he answered.
 
 “Come and see,” Philip said.  
 
It is interesting that Philip should have mentioned the law to Bartholomew (referred to as Nathaniel by John).  It appears that Bartholomew's interest in Judaic law was central to his existence back then.  In fact, so faithful to Jewish law must Bartholomew have been that immediately upon seeing him, Jesus observed, “Here is a true Israelite. There is no duplicity in him.” 
 
Taken aback, Bartholomew responded by asking Jesus how he knew him, to which the Lord answered, “Before Philip called you, I saw you under the fig tree.” 
 
Jesus's allusion to the fig tree was not accidental.  The fig tree is of great significance in Jewish tradition.  It is the third tree mentioned in the Old Testament behind the Tree of Life and the Tree of Good and Evil.  Tending to the fig tress is akin to taking care of one's master.  It is also held in Jewish tradition that the Tree of Good and Evil was indeed a fig tree.  Thus, "gathering figs" was a term meaning studying, and explains why rabbis studied the law "under the fig tree."  
 
The profoundness of Jesus's allusion to the fig tree struck Bartholomew, moving him to answer, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel,” thus making Bartholomew the first recorded person to recognized Jesus as the Son of God.   
 
Jesus was not disarmed by Bartholomew's response, “Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree?" he asked.  "You will see greater things than this.  Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the sky opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
 
Indeed, Bartholomew did witness our Lord's ascension, but his venture did not end there.  It is believed his mission took him to Ethiopia, Mesopotamia, Parthia, Lycaonia, and Armenia before culminating in India.

​Biden, Harris, Waters Wrong on Chauvin Verdict
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

On Tuesday, the Chauvin verdict was read in Minneapolis. The finding of guilty in all counts led to cheers from some and relief from many. Immediately, the protesters that had gathered outside the courtroom, rocks in hand, lauded the jury's decision. In nearby Brooklyn Center where Daunte Wright was shot during a routine traffic stop while the Chauvin trial was still ongoing, many hit the streets in glee.

As expected, politicians took to the cameras to get their minute of attention and seek credit for the progress they claim has been made. President Designate Joe Biden called the verdict "a step forward" while noting there is still much work to be done. Vice President Designate Kamala Harris called it "an inflection moment" in American history. It appears that in their rush to philosophize on the significance of the Chauvin case, these poetic waxers are making a mistake.

Regardless of one's view on the appropriateness of the jury's decision, the Chauvin trial verdict is simply a commentary on the guilt of one police officer, in one case, involving one African American arrestee. Questions about premeditation and causations aside, there is little doubt that something went horribly wrong when former police officer Derek Chauvin took control of George Floyd. Yes, police officers have to make split second decisions while their own lives are at stake at a time when the country is divided to the point of almost being irreparably fractured, but when an unresponsive individual is held for over three minutes and fifty one seconds without having assistance rendered to him after having already been detained on the floor, handcuffed, and with a knee on his back for five minutes and thirty-seven seconds, one must wonder whether such is the manner in which Americans expect their police to conduct business.

The question of whether Chauvin actually murdered Floyd is a much different one and less obvious than the one asking whether something had gone wrong. The answer to the murder question is laced with considerations over discretion, judgment, training, compliance, and just as importantly, legal definitions of the charges being considered. In this case, the jury, which was exposed to all the relevant information over the span of six days, decided that the evidence fit the definition of murder and voted to convict.

Having not been in the courtroom with them for all six days and not being burdened with the task of making the weighty decision they made, the public is in no position to second-guess the members of the jury and must respect their position. However, to say that such a verdict represents an inflection moment in American history, or a step forward in race relations is simply ascribing to the jury and the judicial system functions that they simply do not possess.

The fact is that America was held hostage over this trial's outcome. As of this writing, it appears that protests and gatherings since the verdict's announcement have been peaceful, but consider what would have happened had the verdict gone the other way. Under the same or similar circumstances, this jury could have reasonably acquitted Chauvin on the murder charges simply based on causation. Then what? The violence that would have erupted would have been herculean. Simply put, the dependence of peace on a preferred trial outcome is no peace at all, and the appeasement of the activists is not justice.

In all fairness, the likes of Biden, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton have all mentioned the long and protracted road that still remains ahead of us before we can achieve a peaceful coexistence amongst America's various racial groups, but I'm afraid they are pointing us in the wrong direction.

After all these years of struggle, debate, rioting, and yelling, it appears that the man who was there at the beginning of this process was the one who was closest to the truth, Reverend Martin Luther King. For him, the goal was a nation where his children would not be judged by the color their skin but by the content of their character. He called for a day when "all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: 'Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.'"

The path to that day centers on God, on the respect for human dignity, and on the presumption that it matters not what one's background is, what matters is sharing in the unguaranteed opportunity to succeed, or fail. This path cannot, by definition, rest on the mantra that black lives matter any more than other subtypes of lives. It cannot hinge on a verdict being more appropriate if it is perceived to favor one group over another. It cannot include reparations beyond the blood, sweat, and hardship that has already taken place in the pursuit for justice, and it certainly cannot be based on the false charge of systemic racism when in fact such a legal environment was rescinded with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

The true question before us today is what we mean when we speak of equality? In seeking equality, are we aiming to stack the deck so white people get punished at the expense of minorities until somebody declares that the appropriate intergenerational punishment has been achieved? Or in the words of Reverend King are we aiming to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood and make justice a reality for all God's children?

It seems to me that the path Biden, Harris, Sharpton, Jackson and others insist on taking us down is one very different from the one laid out by the Reverend. Their path is one of reverse racism, of claiming victory when the white guy gets pushed to the ground, when minorities remain dependent on government, and when they are told that it's okay to enter life less qualified for success because the government has rigged the system in your favor simply because of the color of your skin.

Say what you want, that system does not speak of justice. It speaks of yet another form of injustice. It is a system that propagates inequality even as it claims to promote equality. It is a path quite different to the one laid out by Martin Luther King. Say what you want, I'll stick to the path pointed out by Reverend King.


Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you. Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages.



Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.

Chauvin Judge Utterly Rips Maxine Waters
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
In an extraordinary display of candor and frustration, Peter Cahill, the judge presiding over the Derek Chauvin murder trial, commented on the conduct of Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) and other politicians like her who take to the airways to express incendiary opinions about ongoing, high-visibility trials.
 
The comments came in response to a motion for a mistrial brought by defense attorney Eric Nelson.  Nelson proposed that the case should be retried based on the influence the press and the public was having on the jury.  The motion was brought on Sunday and motivated, according to Nelson, by the countless comments he had received via email and otherwise regarding the attention the trial was garnering.  Among the instigators of undue attention, Nelson specifically cited the call by Waters for protestors to engaged in acts of violence if the jury does not return with a first-degree murder conviction on Nelson.  
 
In response, the judge, who rejected the motion, conceded, "I give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned."
 
Over the weekend, Waters traveled to the protests in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to stoke the fires of anger.  While there, she said the protestors and she were looking for a murder conviction.  "No. No.  No. Not manslaughter," she said, "This is guilty for murder.  I don't know if it's in the first degree, but as far as I'm concerned it's in the first degree."  When asked what protestors ought to do if the jury does not return with a murder conviction, Waters said, "We gotta stay on the streets, and we got to get more active.   We got to get more confrontational.  We need to make sure that they know that we mean business." 
 
Judge Cahill went on to observe, "I'm aware of the media reports. I'm aware that Congresswoman Waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction.  And talk about the being confrontational.  
 
"This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning.  I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch in our function.  I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government.  The failure to do is, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury."
 
Waters' comments have inspired the ire of more than Judge Cahill.  On Monday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced he will be introducing a resolution to censure Waters. However, with a highly partisan, morally defunct majority in the House of Representatives, there is little hope that the resolution will successfully make its way through the chamber.  In fact, in a true display of spinelessness, Speaker of the House of Representative Nancy Pelosi said that Waters absolutely did not need to apologize for her comments.  
 
Both Pelosi's and Waters' positions on this issue are emblematic of the corruptible state politics has reached in America.  We are living in a time when leaders feel comfortable not representing the path towards righteousness and civility, calling for incivility and violence instead.  Worse yet is the reason these figures dare to tread in this direction, namely that we, the American people, tolerate them and refuse to hold them to account.  Until our own moral character changes, we will not be witnessing any substantial change in the conduct from these elected officials.
 
 
Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you.   Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including  The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 

Philip: the Reluctant Missionary of Turkey
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On a Saturday, Jesus went to Bethesda, a pool in Jerusalem with healing powers where a large number of ill, blind, lame, and crippled assembled, including one man who had been crippled for forty-eight years.  Upon seeing him, Jesus asked why he was not getting in the water.  The man explained that he had no one to place him in the water.  With that Jesus told him to pick up his mat and walk.  
 
There were at least two laws broken that day.  First, the man was carrying his mat, which went against the work restrictions imposed upon Jews in observation of the Sabbath.  Second, there was the healing that Jesus performed on the Sabbath.  

It was the man's carrying of the mat that attracted the attention of Jewish authorities, leading to the interrogation of Jesus as the man who had cured on the Sabbath. When approached by the Jews, Jesus's response was revolutionary callling himself the Son of God and essentially implying that he stood greater than the Sabbath.
 
The confrontation inspired the immediate admiration from countless Jews as well as the scorn of Jewish authorities.  Following this event, according to John, Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee to the top of a mountain where he was followed by at least five thousand men.  Seeing them, Jesus asked Philip the Apostle where they could buy enough food to feed the multitude.  
 
The question was a trick, as Jesus knew the correct answer.  He was testing Philip, and Philip would fail responding, "Two hundred days' wages worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little bit."
 
Too little is known about Philip to allow us to understand why the question tripped him up or why Jesus chose to ask it to him.  Philip is thought to have been born in 3 A.D. in Bethsaida where John the Baptist taught and preached.  As such, it appears that Philip was one of John's followers. In John 1:43-51, after recruiting Peter and Andrew, Jesus goes to Galilee where he finds Philip and tells him, "Follow me."  Philip unhesitatingly does and then brought Nathanael to Jesus.
 
When Jesus told the apostles he was leaving, Philip once again got tripped up by asking him to show them the Father.  The question obviously irritated Jesus who answered, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?  Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?"  
 
It is possible that Philip was actually Greek, as his name is Greek, and he apparently spoke the language.  This would explain why the Greeks approached him specifically when desiring to meet Jesus.  Philip famously took them to Andrew who then introduced them to Jesus, signaling the arrival of the time for Jesus to enter into his sacrifice.  
 
Philip's post-Gospel ministry was long and impactful despite his utter distress when he received his assignment to Scythia (present day southeastern portion of Ukraine, southern Russia, and western Kazakhstan).  His reaction was so negative that Mariamne, who has been called his sister but was actually Philip's wife, an apostle, and possibly Lazarus's sister, had to pray for Jesus's intervention in support of Philip.  
 
Philip ultimately went to Greece and then to Scythia with Mariamne and Bartholomew where they ministered to the nomads living there. 
 
According to the Acts of Philip dated to the second or third century, the Apostle died in Hieropolis after having converted the local councilman's wife to Christianity.  The conversion so enraged the tyrant that he had Philip crucified along with the disciple Bartholomew, and Mariamne tortured in the vilest ways.   Philip preached from the cross upside down, moving all to release him, but he refused.  Bartholomew was taken down from the cross, making him the only apostle to survive a crucifixion.  
 
One fascinating point regarding Philips crucifixion revolves around the fact that Hieropolis sits on a fault line. One of the alleged embellishments in the Acts of Philips deals with the miraculous occurrence of a massive earthquake that was willed by Phillip as he was being crucified.  The earthquake swallowed up the pagan temple as well as  7,000 of its followers.  Even though the earthquake and the temple's destruction have been dismissed as whimsical, an earthquake did take place in 60 A.D., around the time of Philip's ministry, and it did indeed destroy the local templ, which  had been built directly on the fault line so that it may benefit from the vapors rising from the earth's crust.  Philip, in his anger, is said to have willed the earthquake upon his enemies, causing them to be swallowed up, and their temple destroyed.  The curse earned Jesus's reprimand and forty years in purgatory for Philip for having used  evil to fight  evil against Jesus's teachings.  
 
Philip's body was taken down from the cross by Bartholomew and Mariamne.  He was buried in Hieropolis. His remains were subsequently transferred to Constantinople then to the Church of the Dodici Apostoli in Rome.  He was survived by his wife Mariamne and their four prophetess daughters.  
 
Philip's tomb in Hieropolis, Turkey, was discovered in 2011 by Francesco D'Andria.
 

 
Help support the publication of more articles like these.  Donate to The Federalist Pages, or Join The Founding Fathers Club.
 
 
Read more from our Christianity Series by visiting thefederalistpages/news.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
 
 

​Democrats Out to Destroy the Republic
by 
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Less than three months into the Biden Pseudo-Administration's tenure, the Democrats' power-driven agenda to permanently reshape the face of the country has clearly come into view.  To many, their unquenchable thirst for power was glaringly obvious even before they took power.  But now, through their rapid and nearly overwhelming assault on the nation's very fabric, the scope of their intentions has become blatantly clear.  
 
The Democrats understand that their 1960s and 1970s socialist ideas from an era of free love, overwhelming drug use, unionization, and the push for equality in outcomes rather than equality in opportunity has become obsolete.  Ideas that had not been previously tested have been proven ineffective if not destructive.  In short, there are few, more effective ways of wrecking an economy, destroying a society's moral compass, and wrecking the family unit than by following the Democrats' policy mantra.  Recognizing that they cannot win the contest of ideas, their goal has morphed. Silenced are the Democrats who saw America's future through an alternative prism but who honored the Constitution and the foundations upon which the nation was built.  These individuals have been ridiculed, bullied and censored into submission, replaced by a radical bunch that cares nothing for our nation's traditions and institutions, and in fact, despise them.  
 
Recognizing that they could be in possession of one their final opportunities to control the future direction of government, they have taken an aggressive stance at permanently tilting the balance of power in their favor, even though their plan will mean the Republic's destruction.  
 
Here's how they intend to do it:
 
1. End the Filibuster.
 
The Left has little chance of passing its radical legislation so long as there is a filibuster in the Senate.  Under the Senate's rules, the minority party may block the progression of a bill by calling for a filibuster, which shall remain in place so long as the majority is unable to muster more than 60 votes to break it.  Indeed, the filibuster has been the greatest protector of the minority and the most effective parliamentary impediment to the infringement of rights in American history.  Because of it, the Left has a snowball's chance of passing gun confiscation legislation, election destabilizing statutes, and resolutions to stack the Supreme Court despite having slight majorities in both chambers of Congress and the Presidency of the United States.  Absent the filibuster, they are free to ram their agenda down the nation's throat.
 
The irony is that the Democrats are selling the filibuster as a great evil to African Americans.  According to the Democrats, the filibuster is the single greatest impediment to passing civil rights legislation and undoing laws that are oppressive to blacks and other minorities when in fact, the filibuster is the most effective deterrent to the passage of oppressive pieces of legislation that would quash the minority.  If a member of the minority, political or ethnic, truly believes that Republicans are as evil as the Democrats try to paint them, then he or she should insist that the filibuster be preserved.  Yet the Democrats have ramped up their efforts at convincing minorities that exactly the opposite is true.  
 
Presently, the Democrats may be as close as two votes away (Senators Joe Manchin, WV, and Krysten Sinema, AZ) from being able to effectively remove the filibuster from the rules of the Senate, and they are applying mammoth pressure upon these two senators to capitulate.   The Democrats seem to have no fear of the possibility of a change in the balance of power back into Republican hands, something that previously burned them when, under the leadership of Senator Harry Reid, they dispensed with the filibuster rule as it applies to judicial nominees allowing the Republicans to install the most conservative Supreme Court in decades.  
 
One may wonder why the Democrats would not be concerned about the filibusters' sharp back edge.  The answer lies in their second agenda item.
 
2. Get Rid of What Semblance There May Remain of State Sovereignty.
 
The Democrats' second destabilizing agenda item is the destruction of state sovereignty through the repression of their abilities to craft their own election laws. This battle is being waged on two fronts: Congress and in the court of public opinion.
 
In Congress, the Democrats are making an unbridled effort at passing HR-1. The legislation, if passed, would not only legalize practically all the destabilizing practices that destroyed our confidence in the electoral system during the 2020 elections, but it would also remove the sovereignty of the states by keeping them from independently engaging in the essential function of designing their own voting district.  If HR-1 passes, it would essentially tilt the election process so heavily into the hands of the Left that it would be difficult to foresee a Republican win at any time in the near future.  Destabilizers such as the deployment of unsolicited mail-in ballots, the dismissal of photo IDs as a requirement to vote, and the ability for one to cast a provisional ballot on Election Day without any form of identification would all become normative.  With such interventions, America may never again see another transparent, accountable, and reproducible election.
 
The second phalanx is directed at the court of public opinion. The press and corporate America have been recruited as useful fools in the campaign to sell any legislation seeking to regulate fraud or voter irregularities as racist in nature and suppressive of voters' rights.  Their arguments are as nonsensical as they are devoid of factual support, but that has never stopped the Democrats from zealously pursuing their agenda.  
 
Of course, the Democrats have no chance of getting this legislation through the Senate; that is unless, they are successful in accomplishing their first priority agenda described in the previous bullet: get rid of the filibuster.
 
 
3. Stack the Supreme Court.
 
There is a reason why the Left tried so zealously to destroy then Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and why they tried so hard to shame President Donald J. Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell into delaying the confirmation of then Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  The Supreme Court is the liberal's most valuable legislative player.  No body has been more effective at implementing liberal legislation than the Supreme Court of the United States.  When the legislature cannot, the Supreme Court has, and does.   Thus, the importance of the judiciary to the Left's agenda.  
 
Having lost the majority in the Supreme Court, the Left is now trying to undue the sting by stacking the Court with four more justices, not coincidentally the exact number needed to effect a 7-6 liberal majority.  
 
Once again, the Left has no chance at stacking the Court unless it is successful in implementing the change in paragraph 1.  
 
 
4. Confiscate Weapons
 
The greatest protection the people have against the advances of a tyrannical government is their executed right to bear arms.  No other instrument prevents the oppression of a constituency more than their realistic and demonstrable ability to fight back. The Democrats, and in particular the Left, know this.  As such it is in their greatest interest to disarm the American people.  Rest assured, the Left could not care less about the safety of the people, or the issue of gun related violence beyond its use as a method to suppress any resistance by the population to their infractions.  Theirs is to destroy the Constitution and promote a new-Marxist/fascist agenda, even if it means taking down the greatest Constitutional Republic mankind has ever produced.  This explains their agenda at disarming Americans, or short of that, at placing them at the greatest disadvantage against a police state.  This is also why the Left has not yet removed the fences and the national guard from our nation's capital.
 
There are many other corollary techniques the Left is employing: the nation's infiltration of illegal aliens with the purpose of producing millions of new Democrat voters, the economy's continued disruptions so as to create greater dependence on government, the promotion of globalism so as to make individual independence all the more difficult to achieve, and the ridiculing and silencing of positions contrary to their agenda.  All these are useful tools to be sure, but they have only one aim: to solidify the Left's chokehold on power.  
 
Taken in its entirety, there is only one conclusion to which one can arrive: today's Democrats have such great disregard for America's institutions that they are working to destroy all of them merely to stay in power.  Republicans, as well as the large swath of silenced Democrats who still believe in our nation's inherent greatness must do everything in their power to stop them from succeeding.
 
Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you.   Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
 

​Trump Says FDA Made a Terrible Decision on J&J Vaccine
by 
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
The Office of Donald J. Trump, via Telegram, released a statement bashing the decision by the FDA to recommend pausingthe use of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine.  Here is Former President Trump's statement in its entirety: 
 
The Biden Administration did a terrible disservice to people throughout the world by allowing the FDA and CDC to call a “pause” in the use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.  The results of this vaccine have been extraordinary but now it’s reputation will be permanently challenged.  The people who have already taken the vaccine will be up in arms, and perhaps all of this was done for politics or perhaps it’s the FDA’s love for Pfizer. The FDA, especially with long time bureaucrats within, has to be controlled.  They should not be able to do such damage for possibly political reasons, or maybe because their friends at Pfizer have suggested it.  They’ll do things like this to make themselves look important. Remember, it was the FDA working with Pfizer, who announced the vaccine approval two days after the 2020 Presidential Election.  They didn’t like me very much because I pushed them extremely hard.  But if I didn’t, you wouldn’t have a vaccine for 3-5 years, or maybe not at all.  It takes them years to act!  Do your testing, clean up the record, and get the Johnson & Johnson vaccine back online quickly.  The only way we defeat the China Virus is with our great vaccines!
 
According to the FDA, there have been more than 6.8 million doses of J&J's COVID-19 vaccine administered in the United States.  Of these, six have resulted in blood clot formation within the cerebral venous sinuses, a condition called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CSVT).  Six out of six million seems to be astronomically rare indeed. Interestingly, according to the CDC, all cases occurred in women between the ages of 18 and 48, about 6-13 days following the vaccine's administration.  Apparently, the clots are associated with low levels of platelets.  Additionally, heparin, a go-to blood thinner used in the treatment of blood clots, is dangerous in this setting, although the release by the CDC does not describe why.  
 
CSVT is a condition occurring when a blood clot forms within the brain inside one of its capacious, exiting veins.  The clot can back up the blood flow out of the brain causing damage through pressure and intense inflammation.  The most common symptom is a severe headache, although a seizure may also be the presenting event.  These unusual clots may be associated with clotting disorders and are usually identified via a CT scan or MRI.  Normally, the majority of patients experience a full recovery.  Treatment may include the use of an anticoagulant (blood thinner) or even shunt placement.  
 
Although many have accused President Trump of politicizing the issue, the most intriguing point related to his accusations is the European experience with similar issues related to the AstraZeneca vaccine.  There, 18 cases of CSVT were identified in 20 million people having received the vaccine.  As the European Medicines Agency (EMA) evaluated the situation, Norway, Denmark, France, Germany, and Italy temporarily pausedthe roll out of the vaccine causing an unnecessary slowdown in the measure's distribution.  In the end, the EMA found no clear association and allowed the vaccination process to continue,statingthat the benefits outweighed the risks.
 
It is very likely that the American pause will similarly result no benefits and no changes to the vaccine that will prevent these incredibly rare, untoward effects.  The fact remains that the J&J vaccine has demonstrated a 66.3% chance at preventing COVID-19 positivity and a near 100% chance of preventing hospitalizations and death.  It is difficult to conceive how pausing this most important national effort will help in light of the exorbitantly greater odds of benefitting from it compared to those of suffering from its side effects.  
 
As to the CDC's politicization of the issue, any denial by the CDC is obviate by its demonstrated willingness to engage in racial politics as it did last week when it called Americans racist.
 
Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you.   Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
 

St. Matthias, Master of The Macedonian Man-Eaters
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
It must have been an absolutely harrowing situation for the Apostles.  They had just witnessed the literally excruciating death of their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  Torture and corporal punishment was easily used, and although Jewish law prohibited capital punishment, they had all witnessed their fellow Jews run to the Romans to have Jesus killed.  
 
The battle in which the Apostles found themselves was not merely over some new theological view on life.  What was also at stake was nothing less than money and power.  Thus, the Jewish oligarchy–the Jewish swamp in modern terms–was not about to tolerate the continued existence of some rebellious sect intent on displacing the Jewish holy order.
 
Then there were the doubts.  The post-Gospel sources don't specifically speak of the Apostles' internal turmoils, but human nature dictates that it must have been present. The group had lost its leader. Its raison d'etre.  Together, they had fed thousands with a basket full of fish and a few loaves of bread. They had cured disease and resurrected the dead.  They had dispersed evil spirits, and even more importantly, they had taught a brand new law, one that centered not on fear, but on love.  And now they were being tasked to continue the mission, but this time without the physical presence of their leader who had risen up to heaven right before their eyes.  
 
The Selection of A Replacement for Judas
 
But the Apostles had a more immediate and tangible problem. They were down to eleven.  Judas Iscariot had abandoned them in the most sinful manner possible.  He had betrayed Jesus and set in motion the greatest, most unjust murder in the history of humanity, all for 30 pieces of silver.  In his shame, Judas committed suicide, and his guts, according to Peter, exploded.  So, now there were no longer twelve.  They were eleven.
 
The number twelve was of paramount importance not only for them, but also for what Jesus had set out to accomplish.  Yes, there were twelve Jewish tribes, descendants of each of Jacob's sons.   But twelve meant even more than that.  
 
One of Jesus's major goals was to demonstrate to the Jews that he was their new King.  He was the new spiritual head, not only for them, but for the gentiles as well.  Jesus was building a new kingdom with a new temple, and a new covenant.  
 
About a thousand years earlier, one of Israel's great kings, Solomon, had built the Jews' First Temple, and Jesus had just built a new one.  Like Jesus, Solomon had ridden into Jerusalem on an ass when about to receive his coronation.  And Solomon, who ushered the peak period of accomplishment for the Jews, had twelve officials who provided for the king and oversaw all of Israel. So did Jesus.
 
But now, they were missing one.  
 
The importance of restoring the twelve hit Peter, who according to Acts, stood up before about one hundred and twenty brothers and sisters and said that a replacement needed to be found.  He had to be someone who had followed Jesus from the very beginning, and between them, they chose two: Joseph called Barsabas or Justus, and Matthias.  To arrive upon the one, the group prayed and cast lots.  And thus, they selected Matthias.  
 
Matthias's selection carries great significance to today's Church. First, the fact that a position was even available demonstrates that merely being chosen does not make one holy, a conclusion we can definitely keep in mind today.  However, the failures of its members do not detract in the least from the Church's position as the body of Christ on earth.  
 
The other is the authority for the Apostles in choosing their successors. A controversy arose contesting that the Apostles' lineage ended with the Apostles since Christ did not specifically choose their successors.  Yet the Apostles' actions in selecting Matthias debunk that claim.  Not only did the Apostles select their successor that day amongst the one hundred and twenty, but the Holy Spirit then authenticated the selection on Pentecost by appearing to all twelve, including Matthias, and empowering them through its tongues of fire.
 
There is one more interesting side note regarding the episode, and that lies with the casting of lots itself.  It is indeed interesting that the Apostles would have cast lots in order to make their final choice.  The method takes on an even greater significance when one considers that the casting of lots was a priestly function in Israel at the time.  Thus, the Apostle's did not leave the decision to chance, as we might perceive it today, but rather, it was the result of an active interaction between the Holy Spirit itself and the presbyters of the new Church.  
 
The Ministry of St. Matthias
 
Only in the passage regarding his selection does Matthias's name appear in New Testament.  Moreover, the historical details of his ministry have largely been lost. However, there are few points that are known with some certainty.  First, after the Assumption, Matthias spent some time in Jerusalem and Judea.  He then traveled to Antioch with Peter and Andrew. Indeed, Andrew would play prominently in Matthias's life.  
 
The eastern tradition maintains that the Apostles determined where they would go to minister by casting lots.  Matthias ended up going to a land of "man-eaters."  Legend has it that Matthias was taken prisoner by these cannibals who had already removed his eyes before Andrew appeared, guided by Jesus, to restore his sight and rescue him.  
 
Even the locations of where St. Matthias actually went are laced with confusion, as many sources report he went to Ethiopia, but the name appears to have been used in reference to the area in Macedonia, also named Colchis, around present day Georgia.  Still others speak of the region in Africa.  Either is possible, as the word Aethiopia appears in translations of the Old Testament in reference to the African region of Nubia. 
 
After his rescue, it is said that Matthias returned to Judea where he continued preaching.  Aranias, the Jewish High Priest at the time who had already ordered the death of James the Lesser, had Matthias arrested and put to death by stoning.  After being martyred, Matthias was beheaded, which is why the saint is often depicted holding an ax.  Other sources say Matthias was stoned to death in Georgia.
 
St. Matthias' feast day falls on May 14.  
 
 
Help support the publication of more articles like these.  Donate to The Federalist Pages, or Join The Founding Fathers Club.
 
 
Read more from our Christianity Series by visiting thefederalistpages/news.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.