​WHAT AMY CONEY BARRETT CANNOT BRING TO THE SUPREME COURT.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
The successful appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett is unquestionably the source of celebration.  Justice Barrett will bring stability to the law and restraint to a Court that has a history of being all too intrusive in policy discussions and excessively legislative in its actions.  She will be a restraining voice in the Court.  Indeed, all indications are that she will serve as a stalwart for religious liberty, a champion of strict interpretation of the law, and a force against the usurpation of powers.  But regardless of the positive force she will bring to the nation's highest bench, there will be one very important contribution she will not be able to make to the Court, because the issue goes beyond its confines.  Justice Barrett will not be able to restore the proper check and balance between the judiciary and the two other branches of government.  
 
How did we lose this balance?  

Article III of the U.S. Constitution gives the courts “Judicial Power” over all cases and controversies arising out of the laws of the United States and the Constitution.  It does not, however, give the court plenary authority over the question of a law's constitutionality.  In fact, during the Constitution's drafting process, multiple ideas were expressed about how to handle an unconstitutional law.  Some delegates argued that the question resided with the states since the national government, and indeed the Constitution, was a creature of the states and subservient to them.  Others thought the question fell upon Congress.  And still others averred that it was the individual to whom the question fell.  In fact, the thought was that the moment an unconstitutional law was passed, it was void by virtue of its unconstitutionality.  Thus, no one was obligated to obey it.  
 
Ultimately, the issue of who determined the constitutionality of a law was not settled in Philadelphia, but allowed to remain dormant.  The issue would be addressed by John Marshall in his seminal Marbury v. Madison opinion of 1803.  In it, Chief Justice Marshall declared, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Consequently, any law the court determines is repugnant to the Constitution will be void.
 
Audacious as the singlehanded power-grab was, the Congress of the day did not react to it, although by 1820 the consequences of the resulting change in the relationship between the three branches of government had caught the attention of Thomas Jefferson.  In that year, Jarvis Williams sent a book he had written on the Constitution to Jefferson for his review.  In response, the former president wrote:
 
You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.  They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
 
 
So much for the modern argument that the Supreme Court is somehow apolitical! Indeed, it was the Civil War and its associated amendments that set the stage for the fulfillment of Jefferson’s prognostications.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution included Due Process and Equal Protection clauses that federal judges would subsequently employ to force their will and power upon the states.  With the appointment of progressive judges during the twentieth century, the Supreme Court engaged in the laborious work of redefining the various passages of the Constitution in manners neither foreseen nor intended by the Framers.
 
Thus, today we find ourselves in the odd situation of having all our attention focused on what Alexander Hamilton called the weakest branch of government, one whose powers were "next to nothing."  That the judiciary has become the most powerful branch stands without repute.  Not only is its overwhelming influence visible through the effects of rulings like Roe v Wade, Plessy v. Ferguson, Sebelius v. NFIB, Stone v. Graham, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, and Wickard v. Filburn, amongst countless others, we can also witness it through the actions of those that have grown dependent on its influence.  
 
Many contend that a major factor in the election of President Donald Trump in 2016 was the weight the future of the Supreme Court had on conservative voters.  Presently, one of the central issues of the campaign has been the late induction of Justice Barrett.  Not only have the Democrats used it as a rallying cry in an effort to unseat President Trump and take back the Senate, but they have often claimed that they would use their victory to "pack the Court" with liberal judges, hardly the attention merited by a branch having "no influence over either the sword or the purse."
 
Thus, we find ourselves at the crossroads of the same discussion I spurned with the publication of The Federalist Pages.  If we are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the interactions between three co-equal branches of government, then where's the check on a Supreme Court opinion?  And then there's this more disturbing question. If the Constitution belongs to we the people, then how come there is no conduit by which we the people may counter a Supreme Court opinion with which the overwhelming majority of us disagree? 
 
The fact is that we are still at the mercy of a historical fluke resulting from a number of events unforeseen by the Framers.  Until such time that we correct this historical error, we will remain under the thumb of a judicial oligarchy and the politicians that manipulate it for the purposes of forwarding their agenda.

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 MOST DISTURBING QUESTION OF ALL REGARDING TONY BOBULINSKI
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Who is Tony Bobulinski and how did he get to be so important?  
 
Tony Bobulinski is a financier and very successful at it.  He has a family.  As far as we know, he has no run-ins with the law.  He is a former naval officer who for four years worked in navy SEAL intelligence.  As such, he was entrusted with the country's most sensitive secrets, and there is no evidence that he ever divulged any of them.  What's more, Tony Bobulinski is a Democrat.
 
Tony Bobulinski is also a tormented man, at least of late.  He is tormented, not because of any internal demons. Quite the contrary.  Mr. Bobulinski appears to be a well-adjusted, straight-and-narrow kind of man.  Rather, Tony Bobulinski is conflicted because his name, and that of his family's, is being defamed by none other than Congressman Adam Schiff who suggested that he is an agent for a foreign government intent on spreading disinformation.  The allegation stemmed from an email sent to Mr. Bobulinski discussing the dealings between Hunter Biden, Jim Biden, and Joe Biden himself.  And although Schiff did not mention Bobulinski by name, he was referring to him, as the email about which he was speaking was directed to the former naval officer.
 
So disturbing was the allegation made by the erratic congressman that it prompted Mr. Bobulinski to issue an ultimatum to former Vice President Joe Biden's staff, either have Adam Schiff retract his statement regarding Bobulinski's standing, or he would go public with what he knew about Joe Biden's direct involvement in a company created for the sole purpose of profiting from the Vice President's position in the United States government.  Adam Schiff did not withdraw his comment, so Mr. Bobulisnki followed through on his promise.  
 
Thus we have the events we witnessed last week where Tony Bobulinski, a relatively unknown figure to Americans, ended up appearing on television, hours prior to the third and final presidential debate, to disclose his knowledge of Joe Biden's active participation in his son's financial affairs, directly contradicting to the candidate's prior statements.  Bear in mind that Mr. Bobulinski's comments were not delivered with the intent of them standing on their own.  Rather, they were backed by thousands of communications and documents in Mr. Bobulinski's possession.  
 
Last night, Mr. Bobulinski, who has hired professional, armed protection, is fearing for his life and that of his family's, and has already been interrogated by the FBI, sat for an interview with Tucker Carlson, which turned out to be one of the most compelling, disturbing, and revealing in journalistic history.  
 
The interview brings up many more questions.  Is the story real?  Who is Tony Bobulinski?  Was what he was doing with the Biden family legal?  Is the Vice President really "compromised" as Mr. Bobulinski alleges?  What exactly was Joe Biden's involvement in all of this?  And why does all of this smell so foul?  

These questions are ones that, initially at least, are best scrutinized by a free and unencumbered press, which leads us to what is arguably the most important question of all, and one that I would like to see Lesley Stahl personally answer in light of her dismissiveness regarding alleged improprieties on the part of Joe Biden when she herself interviewed the President of the United States. 
 
Why isn't the media all over this story?
 
​
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.
 
 
 

​FATHER MEEKS'S MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS THIS ELECTION CYCLE.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
The image of a priest standing behind the altar in full celebratory garb preparing to give a speech that could only be classified as political frightens me. The picture resembles a recent one of a New York priest who had his parishioners submit to a creed summarizing the false, systemic injustice narrative promoted by the anti-religious Black Lives Matter organization.  
 
But there were a number of things I didn't know.  First, I did not who the priest in this latest image was.  As it turns out, it was Father Ed Meeks of Christ the King Catholic Church in Towson, Maryland.  Father Meeks is very unconventional.  He is one of those rare priests who entered the holy order after living his early life as a protestant.  In his secular life, he was a human resource officer in Baltimore.  He first became a priest for the Charismatic Episcopal Church and then served as a priest in the Anglican Church.  He has four grown children and seventeen grandchildren and was not ordained a Roman Catholic priest until June 23, 2012.  
 
Father Meeks is a unique brand of priest, one with which I have come to have greater contact over the past two years.  These priests are part of a growing segment of Catholics.  They are people who have studied scripture and reflections, particularly those of the church fathers, and have come to recognize the purity and legitimacy of Catholic dogma.  They recognize that the principles and sacraments housed in the Catholic Church are the authentic form through which Christianity came about.  They are purists.  And they are less fearful of loudly proclaiming their faith, even, and perhaps especially, when that faith molds society, guides the interpretation of history, and informs politics. 
 
And so, the demonstration set for me was not coming from some confused modernist lacking the intellectual capacity to recognize he cannot defend the heresies he espouses, but rather from a priest who was willing to speak boldly, bravely, and truthfully from the altar in a manner I had not previously witnessed.   I invite you to witness this message directly from Father Meeks by clicking here.  
 
There are, however, a few observations I would like to make regarding Father Meeks's comments.  First, notice that his dissertation is based solely on reflections on church dogma. More specifically, he does not stray into discussions about the necessity of social programs, a strong national defense, immigration, state rights, labor rights, or any other such worldly considerations.  He bases his analysis only on three wholly Christian concerns, and only three: the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the preservation of religious liberty.  These three considerations, Father Meeks correctly states, supersede all others.  
 
Second, he reminds us that we must observe this hierarchy of importance over other issues of the day because, as he correctly points out, we are first children of God.  We are then Americans.  And then, "somewhere down the line, we are Republicans or Democrats, or anything else."
 
Third, he does not tell you for whom to vote but most impressively calls out where the Catholic Joe Biden "stands in clear and obstinate opposition" to those three overriding, non-negotiable positions. And he does this by sharing with you the five things all Catholics must know about Joe Biden.  And in case you don't have the opportunity to watch Father Meeks's homily, I will lay them out for you.  
 
1. "Joe Biden is unabashedly pro-abortion."  From its position tolerating abortions to the time of birth and maybe beyond, to its approval of the Hyde Amendment’s repeal, and its willingness to fund Planned Parenthood, "[t]he Democratic Party has become the party of death, and Catholic Joe Biden is its standard-bearer."  
 
2. Joe Biden opposes the Church's teaching on the sanctity of marriage.  "Catholic Joe Biden actually presided over the wedding of two men and tweeted, along with a picture of such a ceremony, 'Proud to marry Brian and Joe at my house. Couldn't be happier.'"  
 
3. "A Biden presidency will be a danger to our already threatened religious liberties."  Joe Biden has openly called for the repeal of the Religious Freedom Reformation Act, which would allow for the oppression of Catholics and others with sincerely held religious beliefs that go against policies enacted by politicians and policymakers.  Palpably, RFRA's repeal would mean, among other things, that faith-based adoption agencies would be forced to place children in families made up of same-sex couples despite their organization's objections to the practice.  It means that bakers and artists would be forced to provide custom services for events against which they hold religious objections.  Businesses would be forced to take down sincerely held religious messages when viewed as offensive by a customer or client.  And it means that physicians could be forced to perform acts of euthanasia and abortions despite their sincerely held religious objections to the practice.  
 
4.  A Biden presidency "would open the door for America to very quickly become a socialist country." "[A]nd socialism has consistently viewed religious faith as its enemy worthy only of being destroyed." 
 
5.  The election of Joe Biden would elevate a man whose views are wholly inconsistent with church dogma to serve in a very high-profile position that would "undermine the faith of and subvert the faith of nominal and poorly catechized Catholics."  In short, although Father Meeks does not come out and expressly state it, Joe Biden is no Catholic.  At least, as Cardinal Raymond Burke, Special Delegate to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta put it, he is not a Catholic in good standing.  Father Meeks then goes on to correctly point out the damage that such a misguided, high profile personality such as Joe Biden would have on  others' Faiths as they observe his actions and positions.  
 
Father Meeks is correct.  From the perspective of Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, and any pious individual, a Biden presidency would be catastrophic.  It is simply refreshing to see a Catholic priest with the guts to say it.  
 
 
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 DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS BECOME THE PARTY OF DEATH.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

There is only one truth, and it is that God is the light of the world. Anything that takes us to Him, helps us better serve Him, and allows us to do His will here on earth takes us closer to that radiant, most blessed light, one filling us with life, goodness, charity, and love. Anything that leads us away from it takes us to darkness, evil, selfishness, injustice, and ultimately, death.  

Sadly, today, the Democratic Party has become the Party of Death. Perhaps it began with its insistence in removing the words, "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, words added by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, to emphasize not only the nation's resolve to act consistently with the will of God, but also in acknowledgment of the faith of its citizens.

Perhaps it is the result of its ardent defense of the non-existent right to senselessly kill another through abortion. The right to undergo an abortion does not exist, as doing so is such a direct and unabashed opposition to the will of God that whomever undergoes it, just as the one performing it, acts outside of the natural rights afforded by Him.

And when The Little Sisters begged to be absolved of the federally imposed mandate to fund insurance policies that provide contraceptive services due to their sincerely held beliefs, the Democratic Party, embodied by then-President Barack Obama, coldly and darkly turned its back on them, forcing a long, expensive, unnecessary, and unjust path to the Supreme Court of the United States, only to have their very obviously righteous position validated.

Perhaps it is the Democratic Party's willingness to enact social policy that openly infringes on one's abilities to worship God. Here, I am not just thinking of the numerous restrictions that Democratic governors have imposed on Christian worshippers, but also the many disgusting acts Democrat-run authorities have undertaken against countless Jews in New York.

Or maybe, it is the Democrats’ subservience to darkness that occurred when it zealously pursued the removal of prayer from schools, a successful attack from which the nation continues to pay dearly today.

In its firm allegiance to socialism, the Democratic Party recurrently implements policies designed to substitute God with government.

And lest we forget the Democratic Party's proclivity to offer the nation grossly unqualified, intellectually defunct and corrupt candidates to lead it. People like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Elizabeth Warren, Adam Schiff, Kamala Harris, and most especially, Joe Biden, to name a few.

I have always believed in the importance of a two-party system. After all, the fate of my parents and their generation at the hands of a communist dictator who declared himself the hero of the working class in a small Caribbean island is still too close to my consciousness to deny the importance of having a state with at least two parties.

But when one party denies those principles and virtues on which its nation was founded and ignores the proper role of God and His laws in its existence and in our interactions with one another, that party disqualifies itself from contention as a valid arbiter of truth and leadership. Thus, at this moment, in light of the Democratic Party's persistent amorality in governance and its unfettered willingness to choose death, darkness, and immorality over life, light, and the natural laws of God, it disqualifies itself from consideration of leading the one nation that more than any other must act as the beacon for the world to follow.


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.

HOW TRUMP WON THE FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
So, it finally happened.  A debate of substance.  A debate where conversation prevailed.  Yes, with interruptions, but a very constructive and informative debate.  And in the end, despite the moderator's bias with her preferential and conveniently situated interruptions, and despite a selection of topics that favored Vice President Joe Biden, President Trump pulled out the victory.  Not by knockout, although there were plenty of knockdowns against the former Vice President, but by decision.  
 
First, to the Vice President's accomplishments.  By far, the single most important one was his repeat demonstration that he was not demented.  Yes, he stumbled and stammered at times, but he recurrently recovered and was able to restore his train of thought.  And as a trained orator, the former Vice President looked particularly strong during the three occasions when he stared directly into the camera and spoke to the American people, something the President little did.  Additionally, the Vice President was effective at holding the President's feet to the fire with regards to the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.  But that was the extent of it.  Beyond those few stylistic and substantive points, the Vice President could not stand up to the torrent of punches that ensued.  
 
Here's how President Trump pulled it off.  
 
1. Why Didn't You Do It?  President Trump was very effective in taking the Vice President to task on his record, or lack thereof, recurrently asking why the Vice President had not accomplished those things he was promising to accomplish in the future.  The former Vice President has been in public service for forty-seven years, eight of those as Vice President, yet he has consistently not gotten the job done.  "Why not?" the President repeatedly asked Mr. Biden.  This tactic played particularly well for the President drung their exchange regarding healthcare where former Vice President Biden tried to paint a vision for healthcare's future, but his painting was washed out by the nagging question, "Why didn't you do it, Joe?"  The ever-present truth of a career with few legislative accomplishments hit the Vice President like a ton of bricks, at one point forcing him to say, "Because I was Vice President," an explanation that fell horrendously flat.  
 
Ouch.
 
2. Who Built the Cages, Joe?  Few portions of the debate demonstrated moderator bias more than the one dealing with immigration.  The question posed by Kristen Welker regarding the topic was an ethos-laden assault on the President's policies of placing children in facilities, separating them from their families.  And in a hackneyed, anti-Trump recitation of the nation's experience with the matter, Ms. Welker asked why there were still over five hundred children separated from their families and whether they ever be reunited with their parents?  It was a question designed to pander to the left and trip up the President, and, sure enough, the initial response from each candidate stuck to the script of the often-performed dance.  
 But after a few volleys, the President took command of the topic by recalling the horrors of the cages built under the Obama Administration and deceitfully placed at his feet.  Particularly powerful were President Trump's repeated inquiries, "Who built the cages, Joe?" There was no response.  "Who built the cages?

​In fact, no effective response could be given.  Score, Trump.
 
3. Superpredators.  During the discussion on race relations where an attempt was made to paint the President as a racist, President Trump reminded the public of Biden's use of the word "superpredators" in 1994 to refer to members of the black community during the latter's attempts to pass "[his] crime bill."  What's more, the President effectively pointed out that he reversed Biden's crime bill (his words), undoing the great damage that had been caused to the black community.  Oh, and by the way, "Why didn't you do it, Joe?"
 
4. The Green New Deal Gave Way to an Oil Slick.  The conversation of climate change also did not go well for the former Vice President as his recommendations to "retrofit" buildings and to achieve zero net carbon emissions collapsed under the plan's own weight.  By the time President Trump was finished, the building-retrofit turned into a call for windowless buildings and wind production was dirtier and more environmentally taxing than clean gas.  Additionally, the stale, meaningless, esoteric price tag of $100 trillion was brought to life by the President when he pointed out, "If we had the best year in the history of the country for one hundred years, we would not even come close to a number like that." 
 
And as to the suggestion that scientists were behind the former Vice President's environmental proposal, President Trump quickly quipped, "You look at what he wants to do, if you look at his plan, his environmental plan, do you know who developed it? AOC plus three."  

Former Vice President Biden lost even more points when President Trump forced him to admit that he would close down the oil industry because it "pollutes significantly," (Biden's words) and would discontinue its subsidies.  In one of his most effective interruptions and one of the few times he actually stared at the camera, Trump said, "Will you remember that, Texas?  Will you remember that, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma. . . Ohio?"
 
5. Russia Russia Russia.  But the death knell for Biden came during one of the President's many references to Hunter Biden's dealings with Russia and China.  The President took ample opportunity, with specificity, to expose the recent developments regarding the Hunter Biden computer scandal, to which Biden could only respond with vague denials of impropriety.  The knockdown occurred when the former Vice President claimed that the President was spreading Russian propaganda.  In one of President Trump's most effective counter-punches, he asked the former Vice President in disbelief if he really was trying to sell his son's hard drive as "Russia Russia Russia." Hollowly, emptily, and unbelievably, the Vice President answered yes. 
 
In the end, the President accomplished more than the former Vice President.  The President stayed largely under control.  He was not excessively rude, and he stuck to the rules.  And although the technique did not knockout the former Vice President, and was not graced with soaring oratory, he opened more holes in the former Vice President's arguments than could be found in a keg of Swiss cheese. 
 
As the debate progressed, one more sign of the Vice President's defeat materialized, his dismissive laughs.  If George W. Bush was heavily criticized for staring at his watch during his debate, then Biden ought to be disqualified for his appalling body language and his attempts to dismiss the validity of the President's concerns through inappropriate laughter.   
 
But of course, the ever-more important question is whether the victory would help the President win the race.  For the answer to that question, we will have to await the results of the only poll that matters.
 
 
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 Evil That Is Stevie Nicks.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
There was always something wrong with Stevie Nicks.  It wasn't just her raspy, sedated voice that made her sound like she was dangerously close to falling asleep during her songs.  It also was not also her flirtations with witchcraft and paganism.  And while I have been unable to exactly place what the problem is with Ms. Nicks, this month she shed a clarifying light to the question.  In short, what's wrong with Stevie Nicks is simply that the woman is evil.  
 
The revelation comes from her interview with The Guardian published on October 14, 2020.  In that interview, Ms. Nicks laments the future of access to abortion services in the face of a reelection win by President Donald J. Trump, a threat she believes has been accentuated by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  But although rooted in evil, her pro-abortive position fails to demonstrate the fullness of her vicious wickedness.  Rather, it is her description of past decisions and the utter selfishness with which she continues to defend them.
 
Bear in mind, Ms. Nicks is presently 72 years of age, certainly old enough to have gained wisdom and insightfulness.  She is a woman of unparalleled accomplishment, a key member of Fleetwood Mac, and one with an estimated net worth of about $75 million. 
 
The case in point dates back to 1979 when she was dating Eagles singer Don Henley.  It was then that Ms. Nicks got pregnant.  But instead of celebrating the potential of a new life, Ms. Nicks chose to abort the baby.  She was asked about that decision during The Guardian interview, and she explained that she was simply too busy to have a baby.  After all this time, reflection, and retrospection, Ms. Nicks's explanation for her decision to kill an unborn child is not that she was young and confused.  It was not a renunciation of her misguided priorities.  It was not that she wished she had not done it.  No.  After all these decades, her answer is still as cold, calculating, and inhumane as ever. She was too busy.  But that dark revelation still does not fully demonstrate the scope of her vileness.
 
Her explanation continues. "If I had not had that abortion, I'm pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac."  Here, she actually is offering the supposition that promoting the existence of Fleetwood Mac is a greater moral calling than bringing another person to life.  
 
The reality is, of course, that there is no comparison between the greatness of giving birth to her unborn child and then raising him or her to adulthood when compared to one's art or the pursuit of a business venture.  Life and the wisdom that one has gained are the greatest gifts anyone can give not only to another (yes, the one who is born), but also to the rest of humanity.  There simply is no work of art, invention, philosophical work, or scientific breakthrough that comes close to the greatness of giving life and passing on God's grace to another human being.  Fleetwood Mac was never worth the life of that child.  
 
And while still on that point, Ms. Nicks has either fallen victim to her own rationalizations, or she is overtly lying about her decision. Remember, Fleetwood Mac originated in 1967.  Moreover, Ms. Nicks didn't even join the band until 1975, four years prior to the abortion decision she erroneously made.  Fleetwood Mac had already done very well without Ms. Nicks.  
 
But her musings reveal an even darker side, frighteningly so, as she continues with her interview.  "There were a lot drugs.  I was doing a lot of drugs. . . I would have had to walk away."  
 
To be clear, Stevie Nicks said in an interview with The Guardian that one of the valid reasons for a woman to obtain an abortion is the ability to continue engaging in her rampant drug abuse; the shallowest, most selfish, and yes, evil reason to end the life of another human being I have ever heard!   
 
So, in the end, I am baffled.  The heartlessness coming out of an artist who is supposed to be intimately tied to feelings and love is stunning.  The utter disregard for what she had, and lost is even more so.  The lack of an ability to reflect back, after all these years, and admit that the activity in which she engaged was wrong defies credulity.  

So, Ms. Nicks, here is the question: 
 
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
Dreams of loneliness
Like a heartbeat, drives you mad
In the stillness of remembering, what you had
And what you lost
And what you had
Ooh, what you lost.
 
I shudder at the thought of how she may answer.  
 
 
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 MANY PATHS TO A TRUMP WIN.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Today, I am not going to predict a Trump win.  Nor am I going to say that Trump is going to pull off this reelection effort.  Neither will I say that Biden should get a longer lease on that basement where he is hiding.  I am not going to say these things because I am very suspicious of declaring victory before it's time.  Yes, as an orthopaedic surgeon, I am a great believer in jinxing oneself and in pulling defeat from the jaws of victory because of overconfidence and lack or preparation.  So, I am not going to do any of those things.
 
However, I could share with you my gut feeling that President Trump is in an excellent position to win because of the energy gap.  I could talk about the impossibility of a candidate pulling off a successful presidential race when he hides in a basement all day.  I could talk to you about the discordance between the leftist message from the Harris Administration along with Joe Biden and the nation's political outlook.  But I won't, not because those issues don't matter, but because in the end, the only thing that matters is the electoral map. So, I will look at this race purely from the standpoint of state loyalties.  

And are there paths available through which the President can pull this off! 
 
Let's begin with the assumptions.  Whether accurate or not, there are certain states about whose outcome we can be very confident, so let's call those out.  This election, it is overwhelmingly likely that California, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and three fourths of Maine are going to go for former Vice President Joe Biden, giving him 198 of the required 270 electoral votes to win.  Additionally, we will give him the close states of Oregon, Colorado, and Nevada for a total of 222 votes
 
For his part, President Trump will win Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Louisiana, Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and one fourth of Maine, giving him 234 votes.  
 
With these assumptions laid out, and bearing in mind that President Trump needs 36 more electoral votes to take him across the finish line, then there are two general paths that materialize depending on whether or not he wins Pennsylvania.  
 
Let us first consider the President winning Pennsylvania.  Doing so would earn him 20 electoral votes, which will place him sixteen electoral votes away from winning.  From there, the President could win Ohio for 18 more votes, placing him over the top.  Alternatively, he could win Michigan for 16 votes, and either Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Arizona to put him over the top.  Even if he does not win Michigan, a win in of any two of Minnesota, Arizona or Wisconsin would still win it for him.  
 
The probabilities of one of these results occurring are actually very high.  At this time, it appears that he is either ahead or dead even in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even Minnesota where the word is that the predominantly-Democratic Iron Range is resoundingly behind President Trump.  Michigan also appears to be behind Trump, and in Pennsylvania, the threat to fracking posed by the Harris administration in association with Joe Biden has likely sealed a state as red that came out in favor of Trump in 2016.
 
But what if the President were to lose Pennsylvania?  If that were to happen, then we would have to approach the race from a floor of 234 votes.  Under these circumstances, then Ohio becomes critical because an Ohio win would place him at 252 electoral votes and eighteen short of a victory.  Under those circumstances a Minnesota win along with any other state would put Trump over the top as would a combined win of Arizona and Michigan or Wisconsin.  And these scenarios are considered without upset wins in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, Utah, New Jersey, or (dare I say it?) New York.  If any of these were to happen, and each is possible at this point, the paths to victory for trump multiply.   
 
So, no, I am not going to say that the President will win this election. I will not predict that Harris will lose.  Nope.  All I'm gonna say is get ready for a massive stock market boom come January, for continued liberal nervous breakdowns, and for the appointment of at least one more conservative judge to the Supreme Court during the next four years. 

​As to the rest, you do the math.
 
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.
 
 
 

MY DEBATE PREP FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
It's difficult to say what makes a favorable debate performance. Undoubtedly, preparation is essential. The candidate has to have his facts ready to go.  He needs to anticipate the arguments to be made against him, and more importantly, what his response to them should be.  But there's more to winning a debate than a great fund of knowledge.  Sometimes magnetism is of the essence, a quick tongue, and a sharp wit.  
 
But what makes a debate so difficult to undertake, and so entertaining to watch, is the uncertainty of it all; the possibility that at any moment, something totally unexpected happens that will define the whole event.  
 
Who can forget that magical moment during President Ronald Reagan's debate with Walter Mondale when the President was asked about his age? Without hesitation, the President answered, "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign.  I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."  Nothing else that happened that evening mattered.  Or how about the time when the boyish Dan Quayle stepped in it by invoking the late John F. Kennedy's name?  There, the elder Lloyd Bentsen retorted, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy.  Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.  Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."  A cheap shot to be sure, but it signaled the end of the young Senator Quayle's political career.
 
In other debates, the issue is merely one of appearance. During the first ever, televised, presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy those watching it on television declared Kennedy the winner, while most Americans who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon had won. 
 
At times, it matters not whether you prevail, but rather the accomplishment of another, more pressing goal.  The truth is that the greater goal is never to win the debate, but to win the race.  The last debate between former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald J. Trump was undergirded by such a dynamic. The most important goal fell upon Biden, a candidate so befuddled in his demeanor and so disoriented in his dissertations that it mattered not whether he scored points against the incumbent. Indeed, the only thing that mattered to Biden was demonstrating that he was not demented.  If only for one night, Biden accomplished that goal.  
 
Which brings us to this the third. .  err. . . the second. . . and final debate between the President and the former Vice President.  The rematch. The Thrilla in Nashvilla.  The Tussle in Tennessee.  What's the goal for the respective candidates there?
 
Well, in reality, the candidates are contesting over virtually nothing.  For those still intent on voting for Biden, there is nothing that Trump can say or do to change their minds.  They will still vote for Biden.  For those intent on voting for Trump, he is their champion.  They will walk through broken glass to make sure that their votes are securely delivered to the voting booth, in person.  Then there are the undecided.  These are just fooling themselves.  They have already decided for whom to vote, and most of these vacillators will vote for Biden.  
 
That leaves a small, but very significant group of people who want to vote for Trump, but are not quite convinced.  They recognize the President's accomplishments and fear the actions to be undertaken by his opponent, should he be elected President.  But they don't like Trump's style.  For those people, the vote belongs to Trump unless he screws this up.  For them, there are two things that will seal their vote in one direction or the other: Trump's misbehaviors and Biden's bewilderments.  
 
So my advice for President Trump for Thursday's debate is simple. Lay low.  Don't fight back except when it is your turn to do so.  Don't interrupt.  Don't make any facial expressions in response to whatever Biden may say, no matter how absurd the comment may be.  And don't worry.  You got this. 
 
That the moderator is biased against Trump is a foregone conclusion. That Biden will lie is already well known.  That the debate is rigged to make Trump look bad is recognized by everyone.  There is no advantage for Trump to point that out, except by letting the events demonstrate these truths for him. Moreover, everyone, I mean everyone, knows where the President stands on everything.  The country has access to him three or more times a day as compared to Biden who continues his hermitage.  There is nothing to be gained by Trump laying out his arguments at the expense of appearing cordial.  
 
So, this Thursday, watch for a more subdued President Trump and a more confused and befuddled former Vice President Biden.  And as Vice President Biden falls apart before our eyes because the President followed these very simple rules, just remember, I told him so.
 
 
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.
​

NO HINTS, NO FORECASTS, NO PREVIEWS.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Do you think that the Constitution grants the President of the United States the authority to delay an election?
 
This was the question posed to Judge Amy Coney Barrett by Senator Diane "the dogma lives loudly within you" Feinstein during the former's confirmation hearing on Tuesday.  Now, if you're like me, when faced with such a question, you immediately grasp for an answer.  You reference constitutional law, considerations regarding the separation of powers, the role of the President of the United States, the oppressive state of King George III, statutory law, and case precedent.  Naturally, you try to convince your inquirer of the soundness of your argument and why he or she should be immediately subscribe to your viewpoint because of the correctness and wisdom of your opinion.  
 
But that's not what Judge Barrett did.  Instead, Judge Barrett, much to Senator Feinstein's chagrin, did not answer the question, citing the rule pithily expressed by then Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her 1993 confirmation hearing: "no hints, no forecasts, no previews."
 
In her defense, Judge Barrett cited Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, an oft-cited rule of comport during confirmation hearings.  This rule has been interpreted to mean that a judge is not to give any indication on his or her position on an issue of policy, particularly one that could appear before her in a case.  Elaborating on the importance of this rule, Judge Barrett spoke about maintaining the independence of the judiciary and how her legal decisions were not dictated by her own prefabricated opinions, but by the conclusions she would reach regarding the law after hearing arguments from both sides.  At one point, Judge Barrett explained to Senator Feinstein that if she answered one way or the other, her answer could trigger litigants to engage in legal actions simply based on what they heard her say.  It was a schooling on remedial law that left her shining as bright as a supernova and the bumbling Democrats scrambling for cover. 
 
Despite shellacking she handed the them, I predict we will witness more of the same tomorrow, which leaves me with only one request.  
 
Could you please pass me the popcorn?
 
 
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.