​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:

MOST CATHOLICS ARE WRONG ON ABORTION
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
For the past two thousand years, Christianity, and more specifically, Catholicism, has served as the moral beacon directing the relations between men and between government and the governed.  Jesus Christ, the Savior first and a Jewish rabbi second, when confronted by the Pharisees on the topic of taxes, taught that one should give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God.  But the reality is that in both the Jewish and Christian traditions where the entirety of the universe is subject to the rule of God, everything belongs to God.  Thus, in giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, one cannot provide him anything that goes against the Law of God.  
 
Indeed, the supremacy of God's laws is the foundation to every human right.  It is only because of the dignity afforded to man by God when He created him in His likeness that man also come to possess his dominance over government.  Because of the dogma expressed by Jesus Christ and repeated by the church fathers, government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.  
 
And what is the most important law laid down by God?  Jesus Christ expressly answered this question as well.  We are to love God with all our might and our neighbors as we do ourselves.  It follows from this rule and from our divinity that certain rights must therefore reign supreme, namely the right to life, the right to religion and worship, and the right to raise a family.  No law made by man can ever intrude upon these the greatest laws of nature and God.  If none of us would profess a right to kill an innocent neighbor, how then can we profess a right to kill one so innocent that he or she has not yet even been born?
 
Regarding man's law, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that one "is obliged to obey. . . insofar as it is required by the order of justice."  Alternatively, he espoused, that one is not obliged to abide by an immoral law.  In keeping with that philosophy, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church states, "It is a grave duty of conscience not to cooperate, not even formally, in practices which, although permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to the Law of God." 
 
What civil legislation can be more contrary to the Law of God than the killing of a neighbor who has yet to be born?  
 
We cannot give to Caesar what does not belong to him.  
 
Enter a Pew Research Center report finding that 58% of U.S. Catholics favor legalized abortion "in all or most cases," and 68% oppose overturning Roe v. Wade.  By contrast, 67% of those who regularly attend mass are of the opinion that abortions should be illegal.  
 
But here's the most nonsensical part of the surveyed Catholics' answers.  Fifty-seven percent indicated abortion was morally wrong.  
 
If abortion is morally wrong, it is because it goes against the Law of God who is the source of morality and the One who demands unbridled compliance with it.  And if the action being allowed by civil law is immoral and contrary to His law, then how can such a law even exist?  

We cannot give to Caesar what does not belong to him.
 
The fact is that a law allowing for abortion is inherently void because it goes against the most basic tenet of the love we are to show to our neighbor who happens to be busy growing in a womb.  Indeed, we cannot give to Caesar what does not belong to him, and the life of an unborn soul is the cornerstone of such a prohibition.

That so many Catholics would miss this fundamental question regarding their beliefs frightfully demonstrates the dreadful inroads secularism and lawlessness has made into our lives and into our faiths; a problem we desperately must work to cure.  Our societies and our very existence 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.

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Five years ago, I began seeing a menacing trend amongst the various hospitals where I worked.  The hospital administrations were requiring all employees who did not receive a flu vaccine to wear a mask during the flu season.  In my view, this was problematic on numerous levels.  
 
First, the effort seemed scientifically unsound.  Quite simply, forcing the few people in a hospital who do not receive a vaccine (a vaccine often with an effectiveness hovering at about 60%), especially if they are asymptomatic, to wear a mask in a facility teaming with visitors that may be actively contagious and not wearing masks themselves, is ludicrous.  The campaign begged the question, who are you trying to protect?  If you are trying to protect patients, then everyone entering the facility should be masked. If it's the employee, then you stumble onto privacy issues, which is my second problem with the policy.  I viewed the meddling of companies into the preventive health affairs of workers as an invasion upon their privacy, a bubble that should be breached only fleetingly and with good reason.  
 
Finally, I thought the policy of wearing a sticker or a mask represented a shaming of those who refused to comply with corporate policy by forcing them, and only them, to wear a mask.  Remember, unlike COVID, people without respiratory symptoms caused by other viruses are rarely contagious.  
 
As Chief of Staff, when my hospital tried to pressure the Medical Executive Committee into implementing the same policy for the medical staff, I vehemently and successfully objected. Later, when serving as State Representative, I was so offended by this policy that I contacted the nurses' lobbyist to see if they were interested in promoting legislation that would prohibit the practice of nurse shaming.  It was an advocacy association's dream, the legislator calling it to team up on an issue fraught with injustice.  I was disappointed to hear that the association's board had turned down my offer. 
 
Enter COVID.
 
With the arrival of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, I found it reasonable to have all healthcare workers wear masks during the pandemic, the primary reason being that in the case of this very aggressive virus, people who were asymptomatic could be contagious.  Additionally, the issue of visitors not wearing masks had been similarly addressed as they were prohibited from even entering the building.  
 
Since then, our understanding of the disease has improved to the point where the mortality associated with contracting the virus has diminished markedly, and now, we're on the cusp of deploying a vaccine that will confer at least temporary immunity upon all those interested in receiving it.  
 
But now we have another problem.  The CDC has recommended that people receiving the vaccine be handed vaccination cards proving the person's inoculation status.
 
Sounds like a good idea. . . except it's nobody's business whether I've been vaccinated or not, particularly not the government's.  

Let's play this out.  Suppose everyone has the opportunity to get the vaccine like we will in about six months.  Then, what difference does it make to anyone else if you've been vaccinated or not? If you're sufficiently worried about contracting the illness, then you will obtain the vaccine.  Otherwise, you won't.  Thus, if you're sitting in a plane next to some guy who is snoring with a runny nose and you're vaccinated, what's it to you?  If you're not, then it was your decision not to receive the vaccine.  
 
How about the argument regarding herd immunity?  That's a very important one when discussing policy aimed at the complete eradication of the disease.  But this argument is moot here because no one believes that COVID-19 will be completely eradicated despite the deployment of a vaccine.  If SARS CoV-2 is eradicated, it will be through mutation or its natural dissipation over time, not through vaccination.  
 
On the flip side, the deleterious effects of issuing these cards could be ominous.  How about, you don't get hired unless you've been vaccinated?  Or you can't travel without a card.  Oh, and you can't see that movie in the theater either.  It is the sticker-or-mask policy to which I objected on steroids.  You think the Left likes to sound alarms about its fictitious systemic racism?  Well how about the very real systemic vaccinism it is about to zealously promote and embrace?  People will be harassed, sued, shamed, tracked, and subdued based on whether they have a current, valid vaccination card or not. . . when in fact, it's nobody's business.
 
Which brings me to my original point.  I wish that nurses' association had taken me up on my offer to fight these oppressive policies back when it was merely a seasonal flu issue.  Perhaps we would have laid down the framework to use against the incoming wave of vaccinism.
 
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

THERE IS NO WORLD WHERE THE CONSTITUTION MAY BE PLACED ON SABBATICAL
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

In the dead of night, a police officer attaches his camera to the end of a stick. Like the evening, his uniform is black. Quietly, he leans against the barren wall and raises his camera to the small, rectangular window about five feet above his head. Carefully, he aims the lens inside the building while turning on the remote video screen he holds in his left hand. His mission: to find out how many Jews are gathering to give homage to God.

Initially, he sees two. Then three more, and five at the corners. And then from a hallway on the opposite side of the room three more appear.

The officer looks up from the monitor to address his partners. "Thirteen," he mumbles with a smile.

"Let's get em," responds one of the partners.

Thus far, this scene, save for the electronics, is fit for an event in Poland or occupied France during World War II. In fact, the events described are set in liberal-occupied New York in 2020 under the Andrew Cuomo's oppressive regime and based on actual events that have taken place this calamitous year.

Elsewhere, a group of fifteen orthodox Jews get a knock on the door to one of their homes. It's the police. They wish to be allowed inside the house to break up an illegal gathering of worshippers. The homeowner, dressed in black and holding a Torah, physically pushes the first police officer back while advising him to get a warrant.

And in Brooklyn, a Catholic Church capable of holding a thousand people is told that only ten may inhabit it at any one time.

A world where the United States would witness Jews, Catholics, or any religious worshippers being spied on to determine their numbers would have been dismissed as paranoia just one year ago. Yet, this is the situation to which we have devolved under a mantra of fear and intimidation implemented by the godless Left, a situation whose scaffolds were constructed with a mandate implemented by Governor Andrew Cuomo in the name of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

According to Cuomo's mandate, New York's various geographical regions would be categorized according to the severity of the virus's outbreak. The most severely hit areas would be designated as "red" or "orange" with lesser-affected areas designated as "yellow." Red areas would have the toughest restrictions on such activities that Cuomo and his staff deemed non-essential. Thus, accumulations of more than 10 people in such establishments were prohibited regardless of their size or the precautions their members undertook. In areas designated as orange, gatherings were limited to 25 people. According to the Governor, essential businesses included grocery stores, liquor stores, and hardware stores. Non-essential activities included movie theaters and yes, places of worship. Thus in Cuomo's red and orange designated regions, it was possible to unrestrictedly go to the grocery store, travel to the liquor store for some wine, and stop at the hardware store without a care, but no more than 10 people could assemble in a church or synagogue, even in cases where the facility could accommodate over 1,000 people.

These are the restrictions the Supreme Court reviewed in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Andrew Cuomo, and appropriately, the Court struck it down in a per curiam opinion. The fact that this tyrannical restriction was allowed to exist for as long as it did was the result of a precedent established by the same Court in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom and Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak where the Constitution, according to the Court, was allowed to go on holiday.

But today, it is a much different Supreme Court. Back then Chief Justice John Roberts held the pieces as he vacillated between the two flanks of the Court, standing with one on one day and with the other on the next.

Not today.

Today, thanks to the efforts of President Donald J. Trump and the Republican Senate, the majority is conservative, and it is Justice Clarence Thomas who has the reigns of the philosophical majority. As a result, Governor Cuomo's grossly unconstitutional mandate was struck down, and Jews as well as Christians are able to worship much more freely than they would have been allowed to otherwise. (Yes, even this last sentence is starkly menacing.)

Unquestionably, the outcome in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn would have been different if Justice Amy Coney Barrett had not been inducted. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have cast the liberal, pro-Cuomo vote in lieu of Barrett, and Roberts would have cast the crucial fifth vote to catapult the Court's Left wing over the top.

How do we know that Roberts would have cast a vote supporting the authority of Cuomo's mandate? He wrote so in his dissenting opinion. According to Roberts, the Supreme Court should not have interfered in this situation because, by happenstance, Cuomo had removed the red restrictions from the locations in questions. No ongoing harm, no foul, says Roberts.

But in the eyes of the conservative flank, as expressed in Elrod v. Burns and readopted by the Court's per curiam, ruling opinion, "The Loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." And certainly great harm was caused here. That we should hold it acceptable for the state to insist, at risk of civil or even criminal punishment, that we stay home instead of worshiping our God who has blessed us with all that we have and all that we are is truly unconscionable. Thank God that the Court has now been properly restored to one that recognizes this undeniable truth. And, no, Chief Justice Roberts, this case is not moot.

As I wrote in my book, Coronalessons, the assault on religion and religious worship in the name of healthcare has been relentless. Yet no freedom is more sacrosanct and integral to our existence than serving God in everything that we do. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett recognize that. Now, it's incumbent upon the pious to make sure the rest of us understand that too.

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.

​Go Vote!
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Voting is the most important right afforded to us by ourselves.  No, it is not a God-given right exactly, because the right to vote and the agreement to honor it as the solemn arbiter of decisions amongst men  arises out of an agreement between men.  It is a strictly a Greco-Judeo-Christian agreement, a right that emanates from man's divinity and an acknowledgment that because of it, we are not only of equal standing before God, but also we are of equal standing amongst each other.  And today, you have the power to exercise that most solemn right.  
 
Honestly, there should be no greater motivation to vote than the knowledge of its role in shaping our nation's future and the direction in which we will proceed.  But today's election; the 2020 election; holds even greater significance.  There is no room for the moderate in this particular election.  There is no compromise.  There is no middle of the road. Indeed, we are left with only two irreconcilable alternatives: we either go the way of natural law, of freedom, of life; or we trade our freedoms for a false sense of security and end up having neither.  
 
As I watch President Trump sign off from his last rally of the 2020 campaign in Grand Rapids, Michigan, at one in the morning, I realize there is nothing left to say.  Nothing left to explore.  Nothing more to debate.  Rather, there is only one thing to do.  Vote!
 
God bless you, and I'll see you at the polls.
 
 
 
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 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.
​

​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.