These Ten Republicans Have Got to Go, for Reasons Much Greater Than Trump.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Once again, our country has been duped.  What's so tragic about it is that it was fooled through the same techniques the dupers have employed countless times before.  First, they found an overwhelmingly emotional event.  Next, they selected a scapegoat.  Then they tied the event to the scapegoat and insisted that the only way to keep the event from happening again was to destroy the scapegoat. Of course, in this case, the scapegoat was President Trump, the overwhelming emotive event was  storming the Capitol, and the solution was to destroy the President. 
 
What's amazing is how easily the country accepted the narrative. Naturally, it was egged on by the media, but still, nakedly false it was.  That President Trump would knowingly incite an insurrection, or any unrest detrimental to the nation is laughable.  Yet, some politicians, corporate entities, and a large swath of the general public accepted the claim as true and ran with it.  Never mind the damage such foolhardiness would cause to the country, society, and our system of government, the preconceived goal was to destroy Donald J. Trump; the President and the private citizen.   
 
For those eager to cast the accusatory finger at the President, they forget that there are reasons why the wheels of justice run so slowly, and one of them is to allow time for the truth to come out.  
 
Now we know that the plot to storm the Capitol began weeks prior to the events at the Capitol itself.  The New York Times is reporting that "a network of far-right agitators across the country spent weeks organizing and raising money for a mass action to overturn President Trump's election loss." Similarly, CNN, one of the fiercest anti-Trump propaganda groups is reporting that the FBI uncovered evidence leading it to believe that "the attack on the US Capitol was not just a protest that spiraled out of control."  In fact, as was noted by thefederalistpages.com, some of the attackers left the President's speech early to execute the attack.  Even CNN now admits that the FBI had received over 126,000 tips from the public by early Wednesday morning, before the President even took the stage.  
 
Faced with this information, it becomes impossible to convict the President of any form of participation in the assault on the Capitol,[i] at least absent concrete information tying the President to the coordination or funding of the events, information so far-fetched that it lies beyond the mainstream media's broad powers of divination. 
 
That Nancy Pelosi and her band of left-winged cronies would take advantage of the attack that day to fabricate a way to lynch the President is, as her fellow Democrat once said, deplorable.  She has no interest in the discovery of truth or in the pursuit of justice.  Her only motivation lies in the promotion of her own selfish agenda.  Thus, faced with the opportunity to promote as much discord as possible through a second, unsubstantiated impeachment of the President of the United States, she pursues it with unbridled zeal.  
 
We find ourselves at a time when Democrats have discarded any respect for the law.  Democrats in Congress are calling for the open persecution of anyone who disagrees with them.  Private, Leftist organizations like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple are not hesitating to destroy platforms holding views different from their own.  Judges are ruling in favor of their political allegiances.  Indeed, the only political voice standing in the way of our regression into a purely oppressive civilization is the Republican Party.  Consequently, it falls upon Republicans to act as if the whole future of western civilization depends on them . . . because it is very possible that it in fact does.  For Republicans, there is no room for vacillation; no time for weakness
 
On January 13, the House held a vote to impeach the President of the United States.  Among other assertions, the Resolution asserted that President Trump "willfully made statements that in context, encouraged–and foreseeably resulted in–lawless action at the Capitol, such as: 'if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore.'  Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session's solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts."  
 
In true lawless Democratic fashion, the House proceedings included no hearings, no opportunity for the accused to face his accusers, no ability to present witnesses, and no opportunity to deliver evidence.  The whole process was a sham and a greater insult to the Capitol than any physical assault upon its structure could ever be. 
 
Enter our ten Republicans.  On that day congressmembers Adam Kinzinger (IL), Liz Cheney (WY), John Katko (NY), Fred Upton (MI),  Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA), Dan Newhouse (WA), Peter Meijer (MI), Anthony Gonzalez (OH), Tom Rice (SC), and David Valadao (CA) voted in favor of impeaching the President of the United States. Make no mistake, their actions' objectionable nature lies not in a vote against any particular individual.  In fact, if it is ever found that President Trump purposefully aided and abetted the attack on the Capitol that took place on January 6, I hope he is punished to the fullest extent of the law.  Rather, these representatives' fatal flaw is that they did not stand up for justice.  They did not stand up for due process.  They did not stand up for the rights of the accused.  Sadly, the person who needed defending in the Capitol on January 13 was President Trump himself.  And in this regard, they failed miserably.
 
The next four years are going to be a tumultuous time for our great nation.  We are going to witness wave upon wave of assaults upon our liberties.  Everything from our freedoms to speak the truth (or in error) to our freedom to pray, to worship, to write, to hold public office, to defend ourselves, to a speedy trial, to freely contract, and to raise our families in peace and tranquility will be viciously attacked.  Under such a relentless onslaught, there will be no room for the meek and no role for the docile.  As President Trump correctly said at the Ellipse on January 6, if we do not fight like hell we will not have a country anymore.  And if our great domino falls, many others will follow.  
 
These ten Republicans have demonstrated their capacity to abandon something as fundamental as the right to be heard and to not be subject to the whims of a kangaroo court.  Through that single vote, they abandoned their most elemental role in Congress; to stand up for those natural rights afforded to us by God.  Thus, there is no role for them in future policy discussions where the defense of our very way of life is at stake.  They must therefore be removed from their positions either through resignation or through the will of the people.  Our nation's future depends on 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.
 
[i]As thefedearlistpages.com has also pointed out that "riot" is an improper word to describe what occurred in Washington, D.C. on January 6.

​What's Next for Republicans?
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
My discussions before Republican groups post January 6 have largely centered about one topic: what's next for Republicans?  Amongst all the turmoil, the utter disappointment of having lost the Presidential election (validly or not), the follow-up punch in Georgia, and the disappointment with leadership's lack of resolve to stand up in defense of President Trump, many rank-and-file Republicans are asking themselves what they should do.  My answer to them is very simple: fight even harder using the insights we have gained over the past four years. 
 
Say what you want, things are looking up for Republicans.  Over the past four years, we have made huge strides in the battle against socialism and the evil ideas stemming from the Left.  President Trump's policies have been instrumental in demonstrating the wonders of conservatism.  Applying classic market principles have led to the lowest unemployment rates across all demographic strata pre-COVID, and even after the pandemic's arrival, the bounce the economy has undertaken has been unprecedented to say the least.  
 
Even more glaring has been the contrast between blue state recoveries and their red state counterparts, as has the difference in citizen satisfaction between the two groups.  In Florida, Mississippi, and Texas, states governed by Republicans, local economies have made great strives against the pandemic's drag.  Contrast these with the Democrat strongholds of New York, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, and California.  In at least three of those states, governors are facing serious referendum challenges for their removal from office, businesses are being decimated by self-righteous and oppressive shutdowns, and a massive exodus is taking place by residents willing to leave everything just to escape the Democrats' repressive policies.  
 
From an election standpoint Republicans did lose control in two of government's major power pillars.  However, in the Senate, the margin is razor thin.  In the House, the Speaker has barely a majority with which to play.  And in the White House, Democrats are forced to deal with a rambling President who is dealing with early senility and perceived by half the country as being illegitimate.  In fact, in Biden's case, we should be more worried about the potential threats to national security he may pose than his abilities to promote some broad-sweeping agenda.  This is hardly the grandiose start for a promising new regime.
 
The reality is that the results of Republican losses in the 2020 elections are the product only of one of two factors, neither of which associated with any confidence-building affirmations.  Democrats made advances in their positions either because they cheated (more likely possibility) or because they rode a wave of anti-Trump sentiment to get them over the top.  Either way, these are not seals of approval for the Democrats.  
 
So what's the best strategy moving forward for Republicans? First we must acknowledge what has worked.  Clearly, strong, fiscally conservative policies on the domestic front with a smaller regulatory footprint, lower taxes, and greater freedoms through which Americans may pursue their passions are fundamental.  On the international front, President Trump's America-First strategy of negotiating from a position of strength and pushing the diplomatic confrontation in the hopes of procuring the best "deal" possible for America is the optimal approach to our interactions other nations.  From demanding that NATO members pay their fair share for their defense to our strong support of Israel and the forging of economic partnerships for the purposes of growing peace and international cooperation, President Trump has demonstrated the techniques by which America may grow stronger while furthering peace.
 
But perhaps the most important lesson we have learned from President Trump is the importance of relentlessly waging the battle.  For Trump, there was no backing down.  Like with Reagan, there was an insistence in recognizing evil and confronting it regardless of the pushback.  Abortion is wrong.  Big government is bad.  Prayer and religious worship of a God who created us in His image and equipped us with an inherent dignity is good.  Strong families are society's cornerstone.  Gun ownership is to be encouraged.  And government should leave you the heck alone.  
 
Prior to Trump, the strategy for running for office was winning the middle.  Trump showed that an even better strategy is to zealously mobilize the base.  The approach will afford us fundamentally different results because with the former, Republicans will produce meek candidates that will not disturb the status quo.  With the latter, they will create bold new leaders who will forge novel directions where the nation may thrive.   
 
There is one more point that is quintessentially important for Republicans to recognize moving forward.  Success lies within the ambit of the Republican Party.  In their frustration about the President's mistreatment at the hands of fellow Republicans, some claim it is time to leave the Republican Party.  This would be a calamitous error.  The national margins between Republicans and Democrats are miniscule at this time. Rarely has each and every vote Republicans can muster been more valuable than at this time in our history.  To divide it will serve as the surest guarantee to opening the door to socialism and to the destruction of what semblance we still have of a Constitution.  Clearly, division would set the table for what will likely be an irreversible slide into the bowels of despotism.  
 
Instead, our solution lies with the primaries.  
 
For far too long Republicans have worried mostly about the general election at the expense of the primaries.  For many conservative donors, which candidate ends up surviving for the general matters little.  What counts is getting the "R" in the general.  In fact, what we have learned from the past four years is that the more important issue is which Republican wins the primary, particularly in Republican-favored districts.  
 
So what's next for Republicans?  Practically speaking, it's all about 2022.  Despite my long-term optimism, Republicans, conservative Republicans in particular, have a massive battle to wage over the next two years. Their principal priority must be to prevent the leftist Democrats from running unobstructedly with their agenda. At the same time, they must keep a watchful eye on the 2022 primaries.  This is their time to identify and elect those bold candidates, the ones who will not back down from a good fight and who understand and articulate conservative principles.  Through our experience with President Trump, we have identified the path to making and keeping America great.  The President's accomplishments were truly remarkable in this arena.  Now it's time for rank-and-file Republicans to pick up the ball and run with 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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

​And the World Was Made Worse Through Dorsey's Actions
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
In a series of tweets, entrepreneur, muti-billionaire, Twitter CEO and self-prescribed purveyor of Truth, Jack Dorsey, explained his deranged decision to ban President Trump from his social media platform.  "I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here," he wrote. "I believe this was the right decision for Twitter.  We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety.  Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all."  
 
It seems based on his release of at least eleven tweets on the matter that Mr. Dorsey is reflecting on his company's actions.  But no matter how much he tries, his defense still comes up short.  
 
The issue of censorship for the purposes of society's protection has long been abandoned by all except the most tyrannical and self-aggrandizing of minds.  In fact, in offering his explanation Mr. Dorsey sounds like one stuck in ancient Greece with all its misrepresentations and incomplete understandings of truth. Compare Mr. Dorsey's comments regarding public safety with Plato's words on the same topic in The Republic:

No One Should Have This Much Power
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Sir John Dalberg-Acton.
 
As the federalistpages.com reported, the press and the leftist Democratic Party have continued its assault on President Trump through the propagation of a false narrative asserting that he "instigated" the violence of January 6 and that he is responsible for the most well organized "riot" in the history of civil unrest.  According to the mainstream media and the Democratic leadership, President Trump is to blame for the totality of the day's rancorous activity, yet fail to provide any specific evidence for the association.  It is sufficient for them to continue delivering their conclusory comments until the world accepts them as true.  To them, there is no need for discussion. No need for debate.  Rather, everyone is to accept their deductions at face value or suffer the consequences.  And in this case, the consequences have been plenty.
 
Facebook issued statements on January 6 and January 7 announcing that it was removing a video of President Trump speaking about the protests.  There was no Due Process and no opportunity for redress.  As it turns out, the video Facebook elected to block is the very one President Trump used to issue a call for calm and to ask his followers assembled in D.C. to go home "in peace."  Audaciously, Facebook said, "on balance these posts contribute to, rather than diminish, the risk of ongoing violence."  In its January 7 update, Facebook then announced that it was extending the block upon the President for at least two more weeks, which not coincidentally spans past the end of his presidency.  
 
In the meantime, Twitter permanently suspended the President's @realDonaldTrump account.  It claims to have undertaken this action following a thorough analysis of Trump tweets that in their opinion left them wondering about the manner in which they were "being received and interpreted on and off Twitter." Thus, according to Twitter, it is now its role to regulate, not only the content of messages, but amazingly, how they are "being received and interpreted on and off Twitter."  
 
Twitter then went on to cite two examples of tweets that informed its decision.  The first read, “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” and the second, " To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”  Apparently, these overtly innocuous tweets required drastic defensive measure.  
 
As the mammoth social media organizations mobilized, millions of followers left these two platforms for the safety of Parler, a competing platform offering a greater respect for its users' freedoms of speech.  In response, Google and Apple removed Parler from their app stores, and Amazon web services cut it off from its web hosting services, effectively isolating it from the internet.
 
FATAG's actions did not stop there.  Brandon Straka, the founder of the Walk Away Movement and a man who has never advocated for violence, was also removed from Facebook. Apparently, his page ran afoul of the company's "hateful, threatening, or obscene" content.  He is now at CloutHub.  Thousands of other participants unilaterally deemed by these social media platforms to be members of QAnon were similarly removed from Twitter.  Adding to the leftist takeover, Shopify, the e-commerce platform has removed Trump merchandise from its platforms, and the PGA has stopped sponsoring Trump venues for its events. 
 
What FATAG has done is to pull the plug on one half of the nation's political conversations.  It is their content policy on steroids, designed openly and brazenly to shut down not only its political opposition, but its business competition as well.  The degree of power these giants wield is unparalleled in American history and culture, and it will serve little purpose other than to stir up the animus from those who do not share the deranged and evil, elitist socialistic viewpoints emanating from Silicone Valley.  
 
At its core, there are two problems that have set up the situation. First is the concentration of money and influence that resides amongst these companies.  They are organizations bred in a subculture that knows no restraints. To them passing judgment and executing punishment/corrections based on their conclusions is not only appropriate, but central to its existence and self-prescribed policing role.  
 
And for those of you eager to claim that they have no authority to engage in this type of policing power, think again. Congress afforded it to them, which is the second major problem.  Article 47 U.S. § 230(c)(2)(A) confers immunity upon any "interactive computer service" that, in good faith, "restrict[s] access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."[1]  
 
And with that Congress deemed the "interactive computer service" companies its Ministry of Political Speech.  
 
Make no mistake; the situation that is materializing here is dangerous beyond compare.  In allowing it, we are essentially creating the same scenario existing in Communist dictatorships where voices are silenced and contrarian views are erased from the public's consciousness.  That accomplished, there will be two more prongs to complete the takeover: taking away the people's weapons and dissolving their relationship with God.  We can ill afford to allow any one of these foundational pillars to be taken from us, whether by government or by private institution. Our very freedoms depend on 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.
 
[1]One must question whether Congress has the authority to allow confer immunity upon an organization to limit constitutionally protected speech, but that is a topic for another conversation.

Democrats' Attempt to Impeach President Trump Is Asinine.  
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On January 20, 2017, the day President Trump was inaugurated, The Washington Post declared the beginning of a campaign to impeach him. The President of the United States had not yet engaged in an official act other than raising his hand to take the oath of office and the shameful attempts at removing him had already begun.  Today, the Democrats, intoxicated with their lust for power, have demonstrated no growth, no maturation, and no progression in their abilities to exercise any restraint in their authority.  Instead, they prepare for yet another ill-advised attempt at assaulting a sitting President a mere two weeks prior to the natural end of his tenure.  
 
Let's be clear: the effort at impeaching President Trump is insanity. First, as we saw in the last impeachment attempt, there is no high crime or misdemeanor with which to charge the President.  The thought that President Trump tried to lead, insight, or provoke an insurrection on January 6, 2021, is laughable.  The man gave a speech.  That's it. Yes, it was laden with charged political rhetoric, but it was the same as any other politician would deliver.  
 
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," then-candidate Barrack Obama boldly proclaimed at a Philadelphia fundraiser in 2008. Yet, no sane Republican ever claimed he was inciting violence or calling for an insurrection.  Similarly, when the same President Obama in a hot mic moment unwittingly asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to message then incoming President Vladimir Putin that he would have "more flexibility" in dealing with missile defense after his reelection campaign, no Republican was sufficiently ridiculous to file impeachment documents claiming he collaborated with a foreign power.  Yet, these are the types of destructive actions Democrats are presently promoting.  
 
On Monday, House Democrats filed Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. In part they read, "President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud."  First, that there was "widespread fraud" in the 2020 election is an irrefutable, fact, and second, such fraudulent activity did affect the election.  
 
Democrats also claim that the President incited an insurrection by stating, "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."  Well, compare that to Joe Biden's declaration that “part of it is just establishing with your opponent that if they want to fight, I’m ready to fight. I’m ready to fight."  To claim that a politician is encouraging insurrection or other illegality merely because he or she engages in confrontational language when referring to his opponents or the evils of government is simply downright hypocritical.  To carry such petty accusations to the level of a legal proceeding, much less impeachment, is dangerous to our form of government and morphs a process that used to be considered solemn into a recurring, hackneyed, cheapened, and petulant joke. The Democrats, and worse yet, the country will suffer greatly because of what is being done here today.  
 
The issue of invoking proceedings under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution iwth the aim of removing the President from office is similarly deranged.  Section 4 of the Amendment is triggered by a written communication from "the majority of . . . the principal officers of the executive departments" (whoever those are) or another body assigned by Congress through law, stating "that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."  
 
This bar is necessarily high.  It is not that the President is an idiot, or a moron, or not liked, or exercises poor judgment, it's that he "is unable to discharge the powers of his office."  This implies a physical or mental ailment that has robbed him of his capacity or has left him disabled.  Frankly, at this point, Assigned President-Elect Joe Biden appears much closer to meeting this criterion than President Trump.  
 
On numerous occasions since November 3rd, I have written that Biden and the incoming Democratic regime is going to experience great difficulties in governing due to their strong appearance of illegitimacy.  Their recent actions are making their precarious situation even worse.   Like voracious sharks elevated to a state of frenzy by chummed water, the Democrats seem to be unable to control their voracious appetite for power and self-destruction.  Their path is charted for failure, and all the rest of us can do in response, is hold on for the ride.
 
 
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

​Never, in My Most Chilling Nightmare . . .
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Wednesday, January 6, 2021, stands amongst the most tragic days of my life.  Never, while I floated aboard the U.S.S. America off the coast of Iraq, nor when I stared at the dark and menacing, windowless buildings in Somalia where terrorist snipers lurked, nor when I proudly showed my kids the faded words of the United States Constitution at the National Archives, nor when I saluted the flag flying at half staff at the Washington Monument, nor as I admired the words etched upon the walls of the Lincoln Memorial or the quotes from Thomas Jefferson memorialized in his monument did I fathom the gross violation of our most sacred institutions and the shedding of blood that would take place in Washington, D.C. on the first Wednesday in December.  I felt as utterly helpless and as violently defiled as I did when I saw those two airplanes pulverize the sides of the World Trade Buildings a little over 19 years ago.  
 
But unlike 911, when I watched the broadcasts from the mainstream media, there was no solace, no sense of union, and certainly no consolation. Back then there was some degree of objectivity, some sense of commonality, and some semblance of decency when the press reported on the day's events.  On Wednesday, there was no such respect; only an agenda of hatred, anti-American propaganda, and blame.
 
But make no mistake, the shaming delivered by the mainstream media, inclusive of Fox News, made me not react any more negatively to the objects of their fury, but rather to their own reckless disregard for objectivity, truth, and journalistic integrity.  
 
Today, I will not point any accusatory fingers at anyone assembled in D.C.  From a video appearing to show Capitol Police ushering people past the Capitol barricades and into the Capitol, to one of a Capitol Police Officer leading a group of non-personnel to the Capitol's second floor, to the shooting of a young woman in a crowded space surrounded by Capitol policemen seemingly oblivious to her presence until she was shot, to the storming of portions of the Capitol by individuals looking like no Trump followers I've even seen, there is too little information and too many unanswered questions to perform a post-event analysis.  But even now, there are observations to be made and insights to be gained, and some of those I will share with you.  
 
I start by saying that all laying the responsibility for these events squarely at Trump's feet are themselves hypocrites.  I heard the President's speech twice, and at no time did he encourage anyone to storm the Capitol or bring violence against other Americans.  In fact, as the Capitol was being stormed, President Trump was still at the podium with the overwhelming majority of his followers attentively listening and cheering him on.  Nor can it be said that the President set the stage for a few disgruntled individuals, intoxicated with vitriol, to lay siege upon the Capitol.  That too is utterly false.  
 
The reason the events took place in the Capitol Wednesday, the details of which are still to be hashed out, is that our country has dreadfully failed a large portion of its citizens.  
 
First, the press has horrifically failed us.  Its merciless, four-year assault on a duly elected President serves as an insult to those who ever believed in his agenda and in the man behind it.  Their failure to report his accomplishments coupled with their zeal in attempting to bury him time and time again is unfathomable.  Candidly, every time the media wrote "unsubstantiated claims" or "without any evidence" referring to President Trump's campaign against the grossest election theft in the history of earth, it stung me like a dagger through the heart, and I am sure, it pierced the chests of Trump supporters just as deeply, especially when each of them could see the evidence of voter fraud and election theft even in the dark of night. 
 
Second, our leaders failed us, as they have made it their agenda to dismantle, denigrate, and impeach our President rather than staying focused on charting a course that's best for the American people as opposed to one that's worse for Trump.  
 
Third, every agency or person that was supposed to serve as a stopgap against fraud and election interference failed us as well.  From the local elections offices to the Supreme Court of the United States they recurrently refused to review the allegations of voter fraud in real time.  As it did when I first raised it before Thanksgiving, my question still stands.  If the election is so secure and those suspecting its disruption so off, then what do we have to fear from auditing and scrutinizing each and every vote cast for the President and for Biden?  
 
All that needed to be done to quiet the President's supporters as well as the President himself is for each of the contested states to admit that there were inconsistencies in the electoral and canvassing processes and conduct an open review of the votes within these jurisdictions.  If the President was right, then thank God we found them.  If the President was wrong, then Joe Biden will not have to struggle with the illegitimacy nightmare that is about to befall him.  
 
However, this obvious solution was repeatedly ignored, and those who professed it were harassed, belittled, and called conspiracy theorists.  Thus, we failed to perform our required review, and here we are, in a mess much greater than the one we encountered on November 4th. 
 
Make no mistake; I am not condoning the events of January 6th nor am I giving a pass to those who perpetrated them.  On the contrary, I am wholeheartedly, unreservedly, and emphatically condemning them with all my might.  The heartache of watching our nation's most hallowed Chambers, areas where the most upstanding of our nation's citizens are prohibited from trotting because those halls are so incredibly hallowed is orders greater than the one I experienced when I realized that our nation's presidential election was being brazenly stolen.  
 
What I am saying is our nation is in the midst of a downward spiral that left unaddressed will end with the needless shedding of more blood and the disruption of some of the greatest institutions humanity has ever known or strived to create.  The only chance we have at preventing our obliteration is to be honest with ourselves and identify the true problems for our demise, and they have little to do with Trump.  
 
The events we witnessed yesterday are the direct result of our culture, of our abandonment of God, of our dismissal of our values, and of the disruption of our families.  These are the reasons why what happened yesterday transpired, and the sooner we correct it, the better.  The undeniable truth about why the events we witnessed on Wednesday took place is the same one that afflicts every Banana Republic.  It is simply because some people, misguided or not, felt they needed to take matters into their own hands when their government failed them.  On Wednesday, we saw the latest and growing manifestation of the reaction to the systemic and ongoing failure of our great Republic and her institutions, and it is high time we all took a deep breath and worked to fix them rather than to destroy each other.
 
 
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Fireworks Fly As Pennsylvania Republican Senate Refuses to Sit Democrat Senator
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On Tuesday, pandemonium broke out during the senatorial swearing-in ceremony in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, when the Republican-run Senate refused to sit Jim Brewster, a Democratic incumbent candidate who had been certified the winner of his November 3d election.  Brewster ostensibly won the election over his Republican opponent, Nicole Ziccarelli, by 69 votes in a district that includes parts of Allegheny and Westmoreland counties.  But Ziccarelli petitioned that Brewster not be seated, with which the Republican Senate leadership complied. 
 
Of course, the story is much more complicated than a cursory look would imply.  Ziccarelli lost the election by a margin smaller than the number of counted mail-in votes delivered to the elections' office in undated envelopes. The alleged irregularity has already been contested before Pennsylvania's activist Supreme Court, which ruled that such votes must be counted.  The case has been appealed to the federal courts where it awaits resolution.  
 
That the Senate has the authority to refuse to sit a candidate is virtually uncontested.  A central constitutional corollary to the separation-of-powers and coequal-branches-of-government doctrines is that each legislative chamber has the unfettered authority to decide the qualifications of its members.  Indeed, the concept is memorialized in Article II, Section 9 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, which states, "Each House shall choose its other officers, and shall judge of the election and qualifications of its members."  
 
Still, the refusal to sit a candidate is highly unusual, but in a series of parliamentary maneuvers fit to be included in a case study for a student government training class, the Republicans did just that. The wrangling began with a motion from Republican senators to table consideration of Brewster's qualifications to sit in the chamber.  Recognition of the motion was refused by the Presiding Officer of the Senate, the Democrat Lieutenant Governor, John Fetterman.  The Republicans countered by securing a motion to have him replaced by the interim President Pro Tempore Jake Corman, a Republican.  The successful maneuver saw Fetterman refuse to yield his gavel as he stood at the rostrum calling the meeting to order while Corman conducted the affairs of the day as Presiding Officer from his seat on the floor of the Senate.  In the end, Brewster was not seated, and the question regarding his election remains unresolved.  
 
Aside from a clinic in parliamentary procedure, there are other lessons to be gleamed from these events.  First, they are emblematic of the consequences of the actions of an activist court acting as a slave to an agenda rather than a servant to the rule of law.  That a court should ignore the requirements that turn a ballot into a vote represents a foundational threat to the security and wellbeing of a democratic republic in ways much more pernicious than the tainting of the results of a highly visible presidential contest.  
 
Second, the destabilization of our democratic institutions is yet another symptom of the distrustful affliction that is destroying us from within.  Tempers are flaring where there  should be peace, and confidence eroded where no solvent ought to exist.  Until now, our greatness has depended, in part, on our status as a nation of laws.  The more we stray away from this principle, the closer we come to the precipice of self-annihilation.
 
But on this occasion, the greater lessons lie outside the halls of our governments.  It lies within our withering culture.  From the disrespect shown to our elected officials, to the disregard for the authority of our police, to the breakdown of our families and the denigration of peace in our streets, what we are witnessing is the collapse of a free and just society into one ravaged by anarchy and disorder.   The consequences of fatherless homes, adults who know not the words of the Lord's Prayer, children who cannot recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and arrogant celebrities who dare to not stand for the National Anthem are clear to everyone except the thugs who aim to put an end to this, the greatest social experiment known to man.  
 
It is my firm belief that those answering to a Supreme Creator that has devised a set of laws governing man's dealings and demanding that human dignity be honored still hold a firm majority in this country.  But that majority can no longer watch quietly as the nation is torn to pieces.  Unquestionably, our nation's Cultural Reconstruction is way overdue, but succeed it must for if it does not, there will be nowhere for free men and women to run, and "We shall . . . meanly lose the last best hope of earth."
 
Many watched Tuesday's events in Pennsylvania in horror.  Others with glee.  But I saw them as just another symptom of a worsening sickness whose cure we recognize but have not demonstrated the courage to pursue.
 
 
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW IN WASHINGTON?
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Tomorrow, January 6, 2021, will be a momentous day in American history. Regardless of the outcome, it will long be remembered as the day when Congress was pressed with the responsibility of disposing of the results of the most highly contested, most fraudulent presidential election in modern American history.  Unlike the controversy in 2000, which involved only Florida, the broad and extensive nature of the irregularities surrounding the highly disputed states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin makes it certain that Congress will be placed in the sole position of determining who the next President will be.  

Many claim that Congress should not get involved; that it should passively accept the certified electoral votes from the various governors, but in so doing, Congress will still have made an affirmative choice. Thus, more than at any other time in recent American history, a process that generally is obscure and a mere formality will take center stage in determining the future direction of our country.  How will the process take place?  How will it end?  Does Trump have a chance at prevailing?  Does Biden have a chance at prevailing?  These are the questions explored here today.
 
The Powers of Congress
 
The Constitution confers upon each state's legislature the responsibility of appointing presidential electors.  More importantly, for the purposes of tomorrow's proceedings, the Constitution places upon Congress, along with the Vice President of the United States acting as President of the Senate, the responsibility of counting the certificates.  To govern the process, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act in 1887 (ECA).   It is from this Act that the oft-quoted procedures regarding the events that will take place tomorrow proceed.  
 
In short, when a Representative and a Senator bring an objection in writing regarding a state’s electoral slate, then the two Chambers will separate for two hours to consider and resolve the controversy.  The states will be called out one at a time and in alphabetical order such that the first state expected to be contested will be Arizona.  There are supposed to be no recesses during the breakout sessions, and if the deliberations go past five days, no further recesses will be allowed.  The logic is that at the end of the various sessions, Congress will have resolved the questions of what to do with each state's electoral slate. 
 
How Congress treats each electoral packet is subject to each state's submission.  If a state submits only one slate of electors with the appropriate gubernatorial certification, the certified slate is deemed valid unless both Chambers disagree with the validity of the slate.  If, on the other hand, a state submits more than one slate, as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin did, the presumption is that the neither is valid, thus forcing both the House and the Senate to agree on one slate over the other for one to be counted.  If no such agreement takes place, then that state's slate will not count.  
 
If Congress disqualifies enough electoral packets such that no majority is reached, then the Twelfth Amendment provision regarding the manner in which the President and Vice President are to be chosen by the House and Senate respectively will be triggered.  
 
The Powers of the Vice President
 
Much less clear are the powers of the Vice President.  The Constitution requires that the Vice President, before Congress, open and count the electoral votes.  However, the Constitution does not require that the Vice President who will be acting in his capacity as President of the Senate accept the various slates, nor does it prohibit him from discarding them.  
 
In making the President of the Senate the presiding officer of the joint session through the ECA, Congress assigned upon him an undefined amount of power. Some claim the Vice President's position is merely ministerial, but precedent argues against this interpretation. For example, on at least three occasions, the Vice President chose not to present some of the packets to the joint session.  In 1865, the Vice President excluded electoral votes from Tennessee and Louisiana because Congress had decided to exclude the southern states from participating in the Electoral College.  In 1873, the Vice President did not present the results from Arkansas because in his opinion, the votes "did not in any respect comply with the requirements of the law on the subject."   In this case, the noncompliance issues were mostly procedural, as they were not sealed with the envelope indorsed, and they did not include the certification from the governor.  In 1877, the Senate President refused to present a packet from Vermont because it was presented to him after the statutorily prescribed deadline.
 
These three examples occurred prior to the ECA, but the Vice President has been active in determining the validity of packets afterwards as well.  
 
The Wrench in the System
 
All these rules sound well and good, but in point of fact, the problem is that they are not binding, nor is Congress's compliance with them subject to judicial review.  The reason is no Congress has the capacity or power to bind a subsequent Congress. Thus, the Congress that passed the ECA cannot dictate how the 117th Congress will conduct its business this January 6.  Further, each branch of government determines the rules by which it governs itself. Thus any decisions made by the joint session of Congress as to how an issue is resolved can be neither reviewed nor overturned by the courts.  There will be no judicial review, and whatever Congress ultimately decides will be final.
 
 
My Prediction of What Will Happen 
 
So what will happen tomorrow?  First, I must say it is generally not a good idea for someone to make a prediction on a process over which he or she has little control, as more often than not, he will be wrong.  Nevertheless, for your entertainment and to invite further discussion, I will offer you mine.  
 
I believe that Senator Ted Cruz (R-T) will submit his motion to have all seven contested elections undergo an emergency audit performed by a committee of five senators, five representatives, and five justices.  He will base his motion on the 1876 election experience where a similar committee was drawn up.  Apparently, the experience with this committee was unsatisfying, however, which was one of the reasons Congress passed the ECA the next year. Regardless, I believe his motion will fail.  
 
Next, all seven contested states will be challenged, making the deliberations continue past tomorrow.  I predict that the House will reject every objection delivered to it, leaving it up to the Senate to decide.  Sadly, at this time, Senate leadership is not demonstrating the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the evil it is facing and correct it.  Needless to say, I do not have much faith that Senators McConnell, Cotton, Lee, Romney and others, even when faced with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, will let justice prevail.  This is particularly unnerving since all it takes in each of the seven cases is for the Senate and the House to disagree with each other for the electoral slate to be disqualified and trigger the Twelfth Amendment vote where the President likely prevails.  
 
The wildcard in all of this is the Vice President.  As presiding officer in a process with little precedent and no binding authority, he is the key to what will transpire.  Unquestionably, Vice President Pence's actions will be informed by the presumptive vote counts he will gather prior to the beginning of the session.  If the votes are not there in the Senate, he may outrightly refuse to present packets from the contested states to Congress and even refuse to consider motions to the contrary.  Doing so may appear as a coup, but no more so than the events surrounding the 2020 elections have appeared to conservatives.  Alternatively, he may choose, by his own accord, to send the ballots back to the various states with instructions to resolve the matter in the next ten days so that the Congress may then reconvene with either a slate of uncontested ballots or a Twelfth Amendment vote trigger.  
 
Of course something altogether unforeseen may also take place. Regardless, there is only one prediction worthy of a guarantee.  Whatever happens tomorrow, it will be historic.


January 5, 2021 (0727) Note:  A source intimately involved in the process has contacted TheFederalistPages.com to explain that, contrary to our findings based on our review of the ECA, if the two chambers do not agree on a state's electoral slate tomorrow, regardless of the number of slates delivered to the Vice President, the governor's certification will prevail.  Procedurally, this posture makes it nearly impossible for the objectors to prevail and brings up the concern of the precedent being set for future elections in a proceeding destined to come up short.

In preparing this article I relied heavily on the scholarship and expertise shared by Dean Stephen Siegel in "The Conscientious Congressman's Guide to the Electoral Count Act of 1887" appearing in Florida Law Review, 56, 541-671 (2004).
 
 
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

​IS IT MORAL TO RECEIVE THE COVID VACCINE?
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

In 1973 a woman underwent an elective abortion in the Netherlands.  Like in other cases, her baby's tissues were used for biomedical research; the HEK 293 line taken from the baby's kidneys.  Most recently, this cell line has been employed in the development of various COVID-19 vaccinations.  As a result, many question the ethics of accepting these vaccines.  Such introspection is absolutely appropriate since, at its core, it forces one to analyze the value of human life and the appropriateness of benefiting from another's demise.  Although ultimately one's position on the ethical questions posed by the AstraZeneca-Oxford, Pfizer, and Moderna vaccines are personal ones that cannot be resolved by anyone other than the individual, the Catholic Church has laid out some guidelines regarding this issue, and members of its leadership have actually taken positions on this question.

Little is known about the circumstances regarding the abortion leading to the harvesting of HEK 293. We know that it took place no later than January 1973, with some sources placing it in 1972.  We also know that the aborted child was a healthy one.  The HEK 293 cell line was developed at the University of Leiden, Holland, in Professor Alex Van Der Eb's lab, assisted by Frank Graham.  HEK 293 is the product of Graham's 293rd experiment with the cells, where he successfully clipped adenovirus DNA onto the aborted baby's genome.  Since then, the cells have been employed in a wide array of research projects with direct implications relating to viral disease prevention and cancer research.

The procurement of cells from aborted babies for research and development was not unprecedented in the mid-twentieth century.  Perhaps the line with the most well-elucidated circumstances were the HeLa cells obtained from the abortion undergone by Henrietta Lacks, an allegedly illiterate black woman in the United States who was never informed of the destination of her aborted baby's corpse. There was also the WI-38 human fibroblast cell line obtained from an abortion performed in 1962 in Sweden from a woman immortalized as Mrs. X who was also not informed of how her baby's discarded tissues would be used. Each cell line has gone on to produce significant advances in medicine and in the biological sciences.

The issue of scientific advancement at the expense of a human life has brought commentary from bioethicists and religious authorities throughout the world. The Catholic Church has commented on the matter numerous times, not the least of which was the Vatican’s "Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-COVID-19 Vaccines" published on December 21, 2020.  Its position is clear and based on St. Thomas Aquinas's view that no evil can be justified by the promotion of good.

That being said, there are differing degrees of participation in the evil and therefore different degrees of responsibility for the actions under consideration. Certainly, those who actively engaged in the abortion, the procurement of the tissue, and in its initial preparation engaged in indefensibly immoral actions. Additionally, according to Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, "in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision."

Importantly, the Church also discriminates over the presence of available alternatives. Thus, as is the case with the rubella vaccine, the Church holds that it is ethical for the general public to receive the vaccine even though it is derived from human embryonic cells since there is no available alternative. Despite this, the Church insists that all Christians demand the development of morally irreproachable alternatives to those obtained from human embryonic tissue. It also considers the type of cooperation by the vaccine recipient with the evil employed as both remote and passive. In other words, even though one may receive the vaccine with full knowledge that its development was tainted by the use of human embryonic cells, it does not follow that there was any formal cooperation with the abortion or with the decision to use the technology in the creation of the vaccination. Despite this, in accepting the vaccine, there is some degree of legitimization of both the methods used and the evil employed in its development.

As an aside, it must be noted that, like many Americans, the Vatican insists that vaccination must be voluntary. Nevertheless, if one were to choose not to receive the vaccine, then he or she still carries the responsibility of engaging in other activities for the prevention of contracting and spreading the disease.

Putting it all this together, three bishops from Colorado, Most Reverends Samuel J. Aquila, Stephen J. Berg, and Michael J. Sheridan have articulated concrete recommendations regarding the use of the various presently-available vaccinations. In a letter to the faithful of Colorado, the Bishops opined:

Ultimately, the decision to receive a vaccine developed using aborted human tissue is an innately personal one.  The potential recipient must weigh the ethical issues at play against the benefits to one's self and to those around him or her.  As one wrestles with this most important question regarding morality, human dignity, and scientific development, the Church's work on bioethics offers guidance on the choice one must ultimately make.  In either case, the true solution lies in making the inhumanity and grotesqueness of abortion a thing of the past.
 
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
​​