by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
On Sunday, the struggling New York Times(NYT)delivered an in depth investigation of President Donald J. Trump's "tax-return data extending over more than two decades."  And although the NYT "data" did not include information regarding his personal returns for 2018 or 2019, after conducting its exhaustive, caustic and highly partisan review, it reached a number of unsubstantiated but official-sounding conclusions.  Among these, the newspaper claims that the President did not pay taxes, that the President experienced a chronic trend of revenue loss indicating his lack of business prowess, and that the President has been riding a myth of success largely assembled during his time at The Apprentice that has falsely elevated him to a level of stardom and grandeur that is largely undeserved.  
 
But what is substantially more telling than what the NYT reports is what it does not say.  
 
To understand the full implications of what the NYT does not claim in its piece one needs to acknowledge its position regarding the President.  The NYT despises President Trump.  Since the moment Mr. Trump took that ride down the golden escalator, the NYT, along with every liberal outlet, has been obsessing over his destruction, a mania that has clouded its judgment and dissolved any semblance of journalistic integrity the newspaper still retains.  
 
For the past five years (yes, even before the President was elected), along with its henchmen, the NYT has been on a mission to destroy, not only Mr. Trump's presidency, but his very existence.  Let's not forget that this is the third time, the NYT has attacked Mr. Trump over his taxes without landing a punch.  
 
Also recall that the NYT was a prime promoter of the Russia hoax.  It was a proponent of impeachment.  It actively sold the false narrative of collusion with Russia and a quid pro quo with Ukraine.  And it was a distributor of the theory that President Trump had engaged in illegal activities in order to earn him a seat at the Oval Office.  So vitriolic and aggressive was the NYT against him that if it had found the President to engage in any illegality, it surely would have already vociferously reported it.  
 
Enter the present discussion maliciously brought to the forefront by that same rabid NYT.  Like in its previous dealings with the President, if the NYT had actually gotten its hands on any official or quasi-official records suggestive of malfeasance, it would have published it while making its accusations against him.  Instead, although the NYT makes multiple references to the President's ongoing audits, it fails to identify any evidence of illegality.  Moreover, it specifically states that the documents in its possession fail to reveal "any previously unreported connection to Russia."  In short, instead of taking a joyous victory lap against the President, the NYT is left merely with ethos-laden lamentations of how little the President paid in taxes compared to how much the NYT feels would have been appropriate for a man of his stature.  
 
As to the subjective displeasure the NYT voices regarding the little amount it claims the President ended up paying, its ire should rightfully be directed, not at Mr. Trump, who was merely obeying the law, but at former Vice President Joe Biden who spent the last forty-seven years creating it.  If a billionaire like President Trump was able to pay too little in taxes, then it was because of people like Biden who created laws that legally allowed him to do so. Whether the NYT knows it or not, it is actually making a compelling case against Mr. Biden who created the laws, not one against Mr. Trump who obeyed them.
 
 

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.
 
On Tuesday, our country witnessed one of the most bizarre turns of events in American justice.  After amassing what essentially was an airtight case against a defendant, Cook County State's Attorney Kimberly Foxx announced in a written statement that all sixteen charges against the degenerate, hateful hoaxer extraordinaire, Jussie Smollett, would be dropped.
 
Mind you, the disposition was not a plea deal where at least there would have been some admission of guilt.  Rather, the State's Attorney decided to singlehandedly drop all charges against the defendant.  
 
Let us recall the crimes to which the Cook County State's Attorney is referring.  On January 29, 2019, Smollett called the Chicago police to report that two men had assaulted him. According to Smollett, these two unidentified men placed a noose around his neck, poured bleach on him, and shouted, "This is MAGA country."  The events were alleged to have taken place at two in the morning, in the middle of a brutal Chicago winter.  
 
By February, police and prosecutors had doubts about the story.  First, officials discovered that Smollett had hired two men to help stage the events, and prosecutors were in possession of $3,500.00 check used to pay them.  The two brothers who had participated in the crime were Nigerian friends of Smollett and were confessing to the crime.  Further, the investigators learned that Smollett had staged the events solely for the purpose of bringing attention to himself because he was upset about his salary.
 
On February 21, 2019, after developing a case that left little doubt as to the defendant's guilt, Smollett was arrested and charged with suspicion of filing a false report.  Predictably, Smollett was able to post bond, and there the case remained, ostensibly awaiting trial; that is, until Tuesday's announcement.
 
That Jussie Smollett would be absolved of all charges in such a high visibility case that attracted the nation's undivided attention defies belief.  So unbelievable in fact, that it even raised the ire of Mayor Rahm Emanuel.  At a press conference, Emanuel called the decision to drop charges against Smollett "a whitewash of justice."  
 
Why did this happen?
 
There are number of theories.  First, the State's Attorney could have concluded that the case was just not worth pursuing and simply gave up on it.  This seems unlikely.  
 
Alternatively, there could have been interference from high-level political actors such as George Soros, who had previously contributed $450,000.00 to Foxx's campaign, or Michelle Obama, whose former chief of staff had already contacted Foxx to voice her concerns about the case.  There could have been undue influence from Hollywood, or more nefariously, phone calls could have been made with the intent of taking the nation's eyes off President Trump's scalding hot victory at staving off charges of collusion.  
 
As of yet, there is no evidence that any of these factors played a roll, but one thing is clear.  With the passage of this case and in light of other recent circumstances, it can now be easily concluded that justice in America has become inequitable. But the inequities are not racially based, or ethnic in nature.  And the favored are not necessarily the privileged.  
 
The new beneficiaries of America's new justice inequities are the members of the Left and those who fit and support the Left's narrative.  These include Jussie Smollett, of course, but also included are Hillary Clinton, Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama.
 
The disadvantaged are conservatives.  People like Brett Kavanaugh, Donald J. Trump, Eric Sandmann, and Michael Flynn.  In short, in these high-profile situations, if the media and the Leftist forces will it, you'll be spared, or at least be treated with silk gloves.  
 
If not, they will do everything they can to prosecute you, in whatever court, public or legal, regardless of the evidence against you.  
 
In short, if you stand for religious liberty, equal treatment amongst the races, if you believe in the free market, a biological definition of gender, if you stand for the National Anthem, if you honor our troops, or worse yet, if you support candidates for office that believe like you do, you will be persecuted.  
 
But don't worry.  Remember, Jesus Christ told us we would be persecuted if we acted in His name.  For you, the rewards will be infinitely greater than any that could be given to you here on earth. 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 

​
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On Monday, while flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald J. Trump reversed decades of foreign policy by declaring that the United States was recognizing Israel's autonomy over the Golan Heights.  Like so many of his decisions regarding Israel, Trump's position is one that is as positive as it is bold, and it is one that is long overdue.
 
Israel's Relationship With The East Coast Of The Mediterranean And With The Golan Heights.
 
The plight of the Jewish people and their relationship with the land adjoining the Mediterranean Sea dates back to the antiquities.  Before the 8th century B.C., there was a Kingdom of Israel.  In the 8th century B.C., it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire, thus ending Jewish self-rule in the area.  The region exchanged hands numerous times between the Persians, the Romans, the Arabs, and the Crusaders, among others.  However, through it all, the Jewish people never abandoned their faith, and they never abandoned their ties to the land.  As a matter of fact, one of the most important contributions the Jews have made to human civilization is their ability to stick to their faith; a rarity until recent times.
 
Fast forward to the nineteenth century AD. Many Jews had been kicked out of their land and were living throughout Europe.   The 1800s saw the growth of the Zionist movement by the diaspora (Jews living away from the homeland), called for a renewal of Israeli independence and self-rule. 
 
In 1894, Baron Edmond de Rothschild, a French Jew, bought a large tract of land in Golan for settlement.  When the Jews tried to settle it, Arab hostility from surrounding Arabs frustrated their efforts.
 
Israel Becomes A Nation.

In 1918, the League of Nations adopted the Balfour Declaration heralding the support of a Jewish state in lands then held by Palestine. Many Jews responded by moving back to the area known as Israel.  
 
After the First World War, Golan became part of the French mandate of Syria, and in 1941 it was passed to independent Syria. WWII saw the unprecedented persecution of Jews by Nazi Germany, which led to the swelling of the Jewish population in Palestine. 
 
On November 29, 1947, following the end of World War II, the United Nations recommended that the area east of the Mediterranean Sea be partitioned into independent Arab and Jewish states. Although the Jewish Agency was elated, Arab elements were adamantly opposed to the idea.  On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, head of the Jewish Agency, declared the creation of a Jewish state, and on that same day, The United States of America recognized the provisional Israeli government as the State of Israel.  The announcement was met with immediate hostilities from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq, and the Arab-Israeli War began.   Finally, on May 11, 1949, the State of Israel was admitted into the United Nations validating its existence.  But Israel's relationship with its regionals neighbors was not to be a peaceful one.  
 
Israel Takes Possession Of The Golan Heights.
 
Almost immediately, the emerging State of Israel saw attacks from the Palestinian Fedayeen, and in 1967, hostilities from Syria and Egypt led to the Six-Day War of 1967.  
 
That war saw Israel take the Golan Heights. They won that area like so many other countries had gained territories before them; they fought for it and kept it. 
 
Never, in the history of the world has there been a situation where a country forcefully annexed a territory only to have the rest of the world attempt to renounce its claim.  It is interesting that Israel should be the lone example of such diplomatic hostilities.  Regardless, between 80,000 and 131,000 Syrians fled from the area.
 
Trouble Continues.
 
The attacks would continue upon Israel.  During the 1970s, it fended off multiple attacks from the newly established Palestinian Liberation Organization, which quickly devolved into a fomenter of terrorism.  And in1972, the world reeled in horror when Jewish athletes were murdered by Palestinian terrorists at the Olympic games in Munich, Germany.  
 
And the conflict would not cease.  In 1973, the year after the horrific attack on innocent Israeli athletes, the Yom Kippur War began with Egyptian and Syrian armies launching an invasion into Israel.  In one of the most brilliantly executed military responses in history, Israel repelled the attackers inflicting significant losses upon its enemies while minimizing its own casualties.
 
The 1980s saw continued attacks from surrounding countries and terrorists upon Israel while Iran worked to develop a nuclear reactor while Iran worked to develop a nuclear arsenal.  
 
In response, on June 7, 1981, Israeli military planes attacked and destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor.  The following year, Israel responded to continued attacks by the PLO by destroying its bases in Lebanon. 
 
As Israel forged into the 1990s, Iraq, under the control of Saddam Hussein, launched countless missile attacks upon Israel. Eventually, the United States would invade Iraq and unseat Hussein, while Israel stayed away from the hostilities. 
 
An attempt was made to address the controversies regarding the West Bank and the governance of Palestinians living in Israeli territories through a negotiated solution with the signing of the Oslo Accords with the PLO in 1992, implementing self-rule by Palestinians living in portions of the West Bank.  
 
But perhaps no more poignant a moment occurred in Palestinian-Israeli relations than when Yasser Arafat unilaterally walked away from the table without a commitment after being offered almost unbridled concessions by the Israeli Prime Minister, Erud Barak.  The failure of the Camp David Summit led to the displacement of Prime Minister Barak by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who, in 2001, still unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip.
 
But these actions would not lead to a peaceful Israeli existence.  Instead, another terrorist organization, Hezbollah, largely supported by Iran, carried out open hostilities against Israel, which have continued into the 21st century.
 
Today, Israel continues to be harassed and threatened by organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, with support from Iran, and although the State of Israel has grown into a strong independent nation and a regional power, its security is not guaranteed under the open hostilities from neighboring countries voicing their intent to continue until Jews are driven into the Mediterranean Sea.  
 
 
So why didn't the United States recognize Israel's jurisdiction over the Golan Heights?
 
When Israel took control of the Golan Heights in 1967 and subsequently annexed them on December 15, 1981, its actions were met with condemnation from Egypt, Syria, and other Arab nations.  Not a single country recognized Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights.  Instead, most nations, the United States included, and the United Nations claimed that they preferred a peacefully negotiated solution to the issue, and opted not to choose sides on the matter.  Consequently, for over 35 years, Israel has stood alone on this issue, the object of active hostilities from its neighbors.
 
The fact is that the Golan Heights are of fundamental importance to Israel and its security.  It acts a buffer against one of its mortal enemies, Syria.  With its high topography, the Golan Heights serves as an excellent reconnaissance venue under Israel, and a strategic value launching site under its enemies.  And not to be dismissed. the Golan Heights provide 30% of the nation's water supplies. 
 
Moreover, to pretend that a negotiated peace agreement regarding this strip is even possible is a nonsensical position and one that flies in the face of reality; a reality that for thousands of years has represented only aggression against Jews and their homeland. 
 
Yes, President Trump was absolutely correct in discarding the deceitfulness of political correctness that has thus far enveloped America's position regarding Israel.   Indeed, Israel is our greatest regional ally and the United States should unabashedly stand behind it in the world stage.  If the Golan Heights is important to Israel, then it is important to the United States.  President Trump's proclamation on Monday merely affirmed an unmistakably obvious fact.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
On May 17, 2017, Bob Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to the investigation on Russian interference.  Last Friday, nearly two years after his appointment and following the assignment of 19 lawyers, approximately 40 agents, 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, and interviews with approximately 500 witnesses, Mueller's report was presented to Attorney General William Barr. The resounding conclusion, predictably enough was that "'the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'"
 
After approximately $25 million of expenditures, two years of incessant torture of a validly elected President of the United States, the harassment and arrest of individuals involved in President Donald J. Trump's campaign for reasons not involving collusion, the investigation found what the American people already knew, that the President of the United States won the 2016 election because he was fairly elected by the people of the United States over one of the worst presidential candidates in American history!  
 
Oh, yes, and the Russians were trying to interfere with our election process.  
 
Well, there's front-page news!  The Russians were trying to disrupt the American political process!
 
But hidden within the pages of a AG Barr's summary are key words that could signal the new direction of the Russian meddling investigation, and perhaps one that would be much more fruitful:  "Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks."
 
Admittedly, this too is information of which most informed observers were aware, but here, for the first time, is an official admission by a dedicated investigator that Hillary Clinton's emails, and/or those of her associates, were hacked by nefarious, foreign actors.  
 
How far does this intrusion into Clinton's emails go?  That is precisely the question that will lead any subsequent investigators to Mrs. Clinton's email habits and an evaluation of her email security practices, not just relating to campaign emails, but those regarding nationally sensitive information such as her activities as Secretary of State.  
 
And therein lies the most visible threat to Mrs. Clinton, and the most likely direction in which any future inquiry regarding Russian meddling will inevitably go.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

​A Weekend At CPAC's.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
It was my first CPAC meeting, and it was awesome!  From Thursday (technically Wednesday) through Saturday, conservative advocates from all over the nation, and indeed the world, converged on the Maryland shore of the Potomac River to exchange ideas, strategize, and learn more about the issues affecting us.  As usual, the meeting represented a collection of some of the most advanced and up-to-date discussions regarding conservative thought, and the zeal was palpable.  Here are some of the more prominent issues in the minds of conservatives this year. 
 
The State Of The Union
 
Almost to a tee, conservatives were concerned about the state of the nation.  They recognized that for far too long America has been headed in the wrong direction, and they were painfully aware of the difficulty and the effort required to turn such a large and massive ship around.  Despite their optimism towards President Trump and the work he has been undertaking, very few seemed to believe America was headed in the right direction.  For most in attendance, the media have become an unapologetic instrument for left-wing propaganda.  The government footprint is way too large.  Our educational institutions have become liberal indoctrination camps, and the youth in our country is perilously close to accepting socialism as a valid socioeconomic alternative.
 
But despite these challenges, those in attendance knew they had a champion, a man who seemingly had come from nowhere and was now sitting in the White House calling the shots on the war against the Left.  And no moment solidified their faith in this President than when Donald J. Trump appeared at the CPAC stage, made his way to Old Glory, faced the audience, and gave the flag a protracted and joyous embrace.  It was a gesture that no one ever recalled any president ever doing, and it sealed their faith in the man that was both the spear for the conservative agenda and the target for the vitriol from the Left.  That image of President Trump hugging the American flag with a big, satisfied smile will likely become one of the great, indelible images in the minds of those present. 
 
The State Of The Democrat Party.
 
Conservatives' view on the state of the Democrat Party was best articulated by Senator Ted Cruz who, in his eloquence and sophistication, expertly and precisely described the Democrats in 2019.  To quote Senator Cruz, the Democrats have gone "bat-crap-crazy."
 
From their position on border security to their Green New Deal, their open and unfettered embrace of socialism, their threats to disarm Americans, and their calls to execute American citizens without due process the Democrat mantra has devolved so precipitously that it defies belief.  The devolution of Democrat political policy is so extreme that, in a taste of so much more that is to come, it allowed President Trump to openly mock the Green New Deal and to encourage Democrats to continue to discuss it. Objectively, it is difficult to see how a policy proposal that calls for the eradication of "farting cows," the discontinuation of cars, and the termination of air travel can ever attract America's swing voters.  And that's without mentioning the Left's renewed assault on the newborn.
 
Right To Life
 
Amongst the issues where conservatives felt the most confident is the issue of the right to life.  Supporting their position is a recent Marist poll showing that 80% of Americans support limiting abortion to the first three months of pregnancy.  Additionally, those identifying themselves as pro-life rose nine percentage points to 47% and even with those who called themselves pro-choice.  
 
The most likely explanation for this renewed confidence is the predictable tendency for the Left to overplay its hand.  Other than possessing an inherent disdain for life, it is difficult to explain how Democrats would undertake such an aggressively destructive stance on human life. Yet this is exactly what they have done. 
 
The Democrats' position on abortion can no longer be explained as a defense of women's right to choose, nor can it be hailed as a women's-health issue, as the babies they are arguing may be sentenced to death are the very ones that have either already achieved viability or are freely living.  
 
Worse yet, the celebrations that took place in the New York legislature after the passage of a bill that would allow for the death of a baby as late as during partum plays out as a disgusting site when viewed under the lens of decency and respect for others.  And the audacity of lighting One World Trade Center pink in celebration for the passage of a death sentence for scores of thousands will definitely shine as a low point in American history.  
 
The attendees at CPAC could sense this and were salivating at the chance of bringing the Left's misconduct and insensitivities to the public fore.
 
Socialism And The Green New Deal.
 
For the first time in recent history, the Democrats are openly and unabashedly embracing socialism as a viable policy answer for America.  It is a direction that goes against every principle upon which our nation was created and one that brings to mind images of the open assault on the liberties Americans cherish.  And of course, it is a system that has miserably failed in every country where it has been tried.  
 
Bernie Sanders' campaign for President and The Green New Deal have become the symbols for such policy changes and the overtly oppressive measures the Democrats are willing to promote.  One would think that socialism would represent an untenable position for anyone to seriously propose, yet the Democrats, espouse it and openly defend it.  Their disregard for the dangers of even flirting with a socialist governmental scheme will surely come back to haunt them in a general election. 
 
Gun Rights.
 
With powerful appearance by Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President and CEO of the NRA, and Oliver North, its greatest advocate, the National Rifle Association has doubled down on its role as the great defender of social liberties and individual freedom.  It is certainly the right approach because ultimately, although the Left may argue statistics and trends, or even make some up, it will never be able to propose a viable substitute for the ultimate defense of liberties and personal freedoms; a loaded weapon.
 
At the end of the day, this is shaping up to be a strong year for the conservative movement in America.  Between a President who is adamant about promoting a conservative vision for America, a House of Representatives in disarray, Democrat members of Congress defending absurd political philosophes, and an economy that continc ues to perform light-years above the rest, it is easy to see how conservatives at this year's CPAC feel they have the wind at their backs.
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
It is natural to conclude that Colonel Oliver North would play a prominent role at CPAC 2019. After all, he is the latest and perhaps most powerful face of the NRA.  So when he took the stage at CPAC, the foregone conclusion was that he would be delivering a pro-Second-Amendment message.  
 
But then he stood behind the podium and began speaking.  He spoke of something bigger than the Second Amendment, something more important than guns and our rights to keep and bear them.  He spoke of our Constitution and of our inalienable rights.  He spoke of the amazing experiment that this, the United States of America, really is because it represents the first time in American history that man purposely built a system of government where power flowed directly from the people.  And he spoke of the prime, underlying reason for this relationship, and even its underlying purpose, the direct and immutable relationship each and every one of us has with our Creator. 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
"A wall by any other name is still a wall."
 
The American people have spoken, and they agree with President Trump.
 
Tuesday's State of the Union Address represented a pivotal point in the Trump presidency.  It came amidst a government shutdown that the Left is still hoping would be fatal to the President's chances at getting reelected.  It also came after a delay promulgated by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who insisted that 1) there would not be a dollar for the wall; and 2) there would be no negotiations while the government was shut down.  Pelosi and her band of minions were confident that the President was losing.  That he was in the wrong.  That the American people were finally opening to her view that Trump was harmful to America and that his policies were insupportable. 
 
Then the most magnificent thing happened.  President Trump delivered his speech.  He was magnanimous, strong, and bold.  He painted a positive picture of America and of the people that make up the country. Immediately, the Left described the speech as discombobulated, petty, divisive, and even "dog poop." 
 
But then an even more magnificent thing happened.  The American people responded.  A CNN poll found that 76% of those who watched the speech gave the President a favorable rating.  A CBS poll also conducted after the speech arrived at an identical approval number.  
 
CBS's poll showed 72% approved with the President on immigration policy, and 59% said the speech was not just one that they approved, but they ranked it as "very positive."  And more ominously to the Democrats, the partisan breakdown of the approval numbers showed 97% of Republicans approved of the speech compared to 30% of the Democrats.  And even more distressing for Pelosi and the Democrat Party, 82% of Independents, the group that Democrats continue to insist decide the outcome of elections, sided with Trump.
 
Undoubtedly, it is far too early to make any conclusions about the State of the Union Address's effects on President's chances of attaining reelection and of the Democrats' abilities to keep the House in 2020.  Suffice it to say, that the results of polls conducted by organizations that consistently jibe to the left delineate an emphatic support for the President generally and for border security; a strong message to Speaker Pelosi that it is time for her to give up the ghost on her argument against barriers to our southern border and support appropriating money to build the wall.  
 
This may explain why Pelosi said on Wednesday that she would abide by whatever recommendations were made by House and Senate negotiators in the issue of immigration, thus potentially opening an exit strategy for her on building the wall.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
I must admit I've become disenchanted with the State of The Union Address.  I guess it began with Obama's presidency.  I found him so repulsive and dishonest that I couldn't stand to listen.  Additionally, I was unmoved by the long litany of summary statements he was making, many of which were disingenuous, yet openly celebrated by his conspiring band of cronies. 
 
When President Trump took office, naturally, my enthusiasm over the State of the Union Address blossomed once again, but even still, I can't get over the fact that the Address has become a recitation of a long list of projects a particular President wishes to accomplish interlaced with precontrived talking points and moments of self-adulation.  
 
The State of the Union report is constitutionally prescribed, but not the Address.  In my view, when the President takes to the podium to deliver his State of the Union Address, he is speaking more to the people than he is to Congress.  Yes, members of Congress will cheer, or not, at certain line items, but in reality, it is the people of the United States to whom the President speaks.  
 
For once, I wish the President would acknowledge that.  
 
In my view, a State of the Union Address should be no more than 20 minutes in length, or perhaps 30 if the President inadvertently dwells on a point here and there. He should speak only about two or three issues gripping the nation at that time.  He should share with us his views on the importance of these issues, how we got here, and what he wishes to do to address them.  The discussion should be laced with observations regarding the strength of the nation, its people, and the unlimited potential of what can be accomplished if we all work together.  
 
That would be a great speech, and it is a shame that the speechwriters have strayed into a framework of having the President deliver a series of bullet items.  Their approach retracts from the purpose of the speech and minimizes the opportunity to have the President truly shine.
 
Still, there is some value to the State of the Union Address, not the least of which is observing the opposing party's reactions to the President bullet points. Last night was no exception.  In particular, I was struck with what the Democrats did not stand for in last night's speech.  Here is a list of bullet items that the Democrats did not stand for interspersed with some of my thoughts on the various statements they made by remaining seated.
 
  
1.  Wages are rising.  Specifically, they are growing for blue-collar workers. 
The Democrats did not stand.  
I was confused here.  Does that mean that they don't like blue-collar workers, or is it the improvement in their wages that Democrats oppose?
 
2.  Five million Americans have been lifted off food stamps. 
The Democrats did not stand.  
Again.  Confused. Five million people are no longer getting food stamps.  That means that they are doing better.  They are providing for themselves, probably because they have jobs now.  Is that not a good thing?  Apparently not, or at least not worth standing for.
 
3.  The US economy is growing twice as fast today as when I took office.  
The Democrats did not stand.  
Do the Democrats not like that the economy is growing, or is it the implicit shaming of Obama they resent?
 
4.  Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in over half a century.
The Democrats did not stand.  
That's a good thing, right?  According to the Democrats, maybe it's not.
 
5.  Asian, African American, and Hispanic unemployment rate at lowest level ever recorded.
The Democrats did not stand.  
Neither did Speaker Pelosi. I thought the Democrats were all about the racial divide and correcting the injustices being purposefully perpetrated against minorities in this country.  Shouldn't we therefore be celebrating an improvement in the economic standing of members of minority groups?  
Nope, say the Democrats.
 
6.  Americans with disabilities unemployment rate at an all-time low.
The Democrats did not stand.  
Who doesn't cheer accomplishments by disabled Americans?  Democrats.
 
7.  More people are working now than at any time in the history of our country.  
The Democrats did not stand.  
Is people having jobs not a good thing?
 
8. Right to try.  
The Democrats did not stand.  
Okay.  This one has to be bipartisan.  The Right to Try law allows people with fatal conditions to try certain curative treatments despite not being approved by the FDA.  It's the legalization of the Hail Mary Pass in pharmacology.  Surely, everyone is in favor of cutting through the bureaucratic nonsense to save a life, right?  Apparently not the Democrats.
 
9.  Companies are coming back in historic numbers.  
The Democrats did not stand.  
I got nothing.
 
10.  The US is the number one producer of oil and natural as in the world.  
The Democrats did not stand, although Manchin did. 
They can't stand this one!  The President of the United States just exalted the destruction of the planet through the greater production of lethal green gases.  Gases that will kill the earth!  Never mind that those products keep our homes warm, help us cook our meals, or keep our biodegradable products cold so they won't rot.  Nope.  We can't have that!  Shame on you, Mr. President.  
On the other hand, who cares?  According to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the planet is ending in 12 years anyway.
 
11.  The US is now a net exporter of energy.
The Democrats did not stand.  
Horrors!  Pelosi clapped!!!  
Otherwise see #10.  
 
12.  America is again winning each and every day.  
The Democrats did not stand.  
Of course.  The Democrats will perpetually root for anyone against the Patriots, and they're still sore from their defeat in the Super Bowl at the hands of a Trump-loving quarterback against a team that, by its very name, celebrates patriotism.
 
13.  The state of our union is strong. 
The Democrats did not stand, and Pelosi smugly shook her head.  
I understand that we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the direction we believe the country should be headed, but to deny that the state of the union is strong, particularly when the economy is buzzing, the unemployment rate is down, and (let's face it) people are risking life and limb merely to be a part of us is disingenuous to say the least.  
We should be celebrating the state of our union today, not dismissing it. And yes, always fighting for better.
 
14.  Another 304,000 jobs were added in the latest job numbers, almost double the number expected.
The Democrats did not stand.  
All I can say is that they didn't stand for this because a strong working force is a threat to the future of the Democratic Party.
 
15. And the granddaddy of them all, America will never be a socialist country!!!!  
The Democrats did not stand.  
A telling testament to the true intent of this crop of Democrats.  They want to dismiss our foundational principles, destroy everything we've accomplished, and take us in the same direction as other nations with consistently calamitous results.  
 
On second thought, forget all I've written. It's okay Democrats.  Just stay seated and brood while the rest of us continue to protect our freedoms and strive for greatness.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 

​by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
Mahatma Gandhi
 
On January 22, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act into law.  The purpose of the new statute is to update the rights of women in accessing abortions and (anti)reproductive services.  The law also makes it legally impossible to charge someone with the murder of an unborn child. 
 
What Is A Human Life?
 
One of the great falsities promoted by pro-abortionists is that an unborn child is not a human being. Well, if she's not a human being, then what is she?  She's not a car.  Or a boat. She is most assuredly alive, and she has all the genetic information that other humans have.  So, if she's not human, what is she?
 
Pro-abortionists argue that the baby is not a human life because it is not independent. But none of us are.  We are, by nature, social animals, which make us inherently dependent on others.  And truly, if we are to use dependence as a cut-off for human life, then why do we not allow for the termination of the lives of the disabled simply because they are unable to provide for themselves?  These people are just as dependent as any unborn baby for their survival, yet the Left, at least for now, is not arguing for their active extermination. 
 
Pro-abortionists also argue that the preborn individual could not be considered human because she has not reached some preconceived point in her development.
 
Well, if that's true, then what is that point?  Does a baby magically and suddenly become a human being when it crosses the birth canal or exits the mother through the abdominal wall?  Certainly, it is hard to fathom the difference between the humanity of a just-delivered baby and that same baby ten minutes earlier.  Does the baby suddenly become human when her heart first beats, or when she feels pain, or when we can see her femora on ultrasound?  
 
The fact is that any definition of when a baby becomes a "human being" other than at the moment of conception fails under the weight of its own capriciousness. 
 
And so, we arrive at the only conclusion we can.  A baby is an independently identifiable and uniquely genetically defined human being from the moment of her conception.  
 
The Vulgarity And Lack of Necessity Of Late Term Abortions.
 
One of the two most significant changes New York's Health Reproductive Act is to allow for a legal abortion after the 24th week of gestation.  The statute accomplishes this by stating that an abortion may be performed, at any time, "to protect the patient's life or health."  Not only is this provision abjectly immoral as it allows for the senseless killing of a viable human being, it creates an escape clause for a mass murderer (the late-term abortionist) to kill   
 
It is virtually impossible to conjure a situation where an abortion is medically necessary after 24 weeks of gestation.  The reason is supremely simple: since the baby is viable in such situations, the way to protect the mother's health after 24 weeks of gestation, if the rapid discontinuation of a pregnancy becomes necessary, is by delivering a viable baby, not by killing it. 
 
With this law, the legislature in its rancid corruption and gross disregard for the sanctity of life has essentially created a new statutory (not medical) provision where the mother may demand to kill the baby.  That provision is that when the baby is more than 24 weeks gestational age, and the mother demands it be killed for her own health.
 
It will be interesting to see how physicians respond to this request when they are fully aware that all they need to do to address the mother's life-threatening or health related issue is simply to deliver a viable baby.
 
If You Are Greater Than 24 Weeks Pregnant Don't Find Yourself In New York.
 
A second appalling provision in the Reproductive Health Act is the provision prohibiting the killing of an unborn baby that is greater than 24 weeks of age from being considered murder.  
 
Suppose a robber attacks a woman for her purse, and the assailant pulls out a knife, or even a gun, in order to perpetrate the crime.  Suppose further that the mother is due to deliver later that day.  As a matter of fact, she is on her way to the hospital to deliver her baby.  The robber then shoots the mother, killing the baby.  The mother survives.  There is no murder. 
 
Say, instead that an enraged father does not want a late term baby to be born.  The mother and he are in a heated fight.  The father, in his rage, repeatedly punches the mother with the intent and effect of killing the baby.  Or perhaps, the father grabs a kitchen knife and stabs the baby through the mother, and the baby is more than 24 weeks of gestational age. The baby, of course, dies.  The mother survives.  In New York, no murder will have taken place.  Only an assault and battery upon the mother.  No justice for the baby is ever served.  
 
The Repeal Of S.4164.
 
Section 4164 of New York statutes required a physician be available to resuscitate a child who has survived an abortion.  The Reproductive Health Act admits that although this baby is legally a person, it repugnantly removes any requirement to save the life of a living, gasping, breathing human being.  
 
A Stain Upon New York.
 
Gandhi did say that the measure of a great society lies in how it treats its weakest members.  Well, the weakest members in our society are the unborn who are at times so weak that they cannot survive outside of the mother and are so silent that it is impossible for them to voice their opinion or defend their most elemental interests.  
 
A review of the meaning of fundamental and inalienable rights does provide a mother the ability to pursue an abortion.  But just like her right to punch another in the nose ends at the point where the other's nose begins, her right to actually undergo the abortion ends at the point where the baby's cells begin.  
 
By any measure, on January 22, 2019, by grossly disregarding the humanity of the unborn child and exculpating future killers of murder the New York legislature and its executive demonstrated themselves to be amongst the worst and most vile of institutions.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On Friday, relatively unexpectedly, President Trump proudly announced a deal that would temporarily end the partial federal government shutdown.  Under the terms of the deal, Congress would pass a continuing resolution funding the government for three weeks.  During that time, according to the President, Democrats and Republicans would work out a deal bringing about a solution to border security inclusive of erecting a wall at the United States' southern border.  The plan, of course, assumes that the Democrats would faithfully negotiate a solution to America's border security issues.  But we know, of course, that the Democrats neither desire a wall nor negotiate in good faith.  Moreover, the President made a tactical error in signaling that if an appropriate resolution were not made in the next three weeks he may use his emergency powers to build the wall anyway.
 
We can safely predict that the Democrats would relish cornering the President into employing his emergency powers for the construction of a southern wall because they know that a hostile judiciary would kill the President’s wall project even if the Supreme Court leans conservative.  
 
In the eyes of the Democrats, the long road towards killing the President's wall is now wide open, and they intend to take it.
 
So what should the President do?  In fact the President also has a path that likely leads to building the wall, and almost certainly, to his reelection, and he too must take it.
 
Now, I acknowledge that President Trump does look a little tired, like a prizefighter in the eighth round that has taken his share of body punches and a few too many jabs to the face.  The President is tired from seven rounds of abuse, and he is wondering if he can take another eight rounds.  Suffice it to say, that the President needs a couple of days to recharge his batteries and remind himself of the immeasurably noble reasons he has undertaken this venture and the incredible accomplishments he has already realized.  
 
What's more, the President is right; border security is a matter of fundamental importance to the nation's stability and safety, and it is proper for him to expend whatever energies necessary to solving a problem regarding which Congress has been negligent for decades.  
 
President Trump's strength lies in the grassroots.  This President is backed by a slew of patriotic, hard-working people who have been begging for a fight.  In fact, the only reason the President was elected is because that group wanted to fight.  The President therefore needs to take let them.  
 
Just like in the midterm elections, the President needs to hold a series of rallies (at least three times a week) in stadiums all across the country where the multitudes enthusiastically and continuously chant, "Build the wall! Build the wall!!"
 
Second, during these rallies, the President needs to explain that he has done everything the Democrats have asked to solicit their cooperation.  He needs to tell of all the deals he has worked, all the offers he has made, and how he has reopened the government for the purposes of making sure Congress accomplishes the mission of addressing border security, since after all, that's exactly what the Democrats, and even some Republicans in Congress, said needed to happen.
 
Next, at every rally, he must blame the Democrats for any future government shutdown.  Remember, the media have hung the shutdown albatross around President Trump's neck. But this argument is no longer applicable.  By reopening the government, Trump has also reset the culpability analysis, and in this sport, whoever can blame the other more effectively wins.  
 
President Trump must come off the gates saying that if this deal does not happen, then the consequences of their negligence is completely on the Democrats' back.  He must explain that we have seen the deleterious effects of a government shutdown.  We have seen the suffering of those furloughed workers who, by the way, the Democrats never cared enough to allow back to work.  We have seen, he must tell them, of the dilapidated state of our national parks and the disruption to our airports.  We have also seen the humanitarian crisis that the continuing dereliction in Congress's duties in solving the nation's immigration problem has caused.  
 
The Democrats know this, he must explain, and they have it in their power to solve the immigration problem and the issue of funding the government.  And if they don't, then it will be 100% on the Democrats.  
 
And lastly, if the Democrats fail to come to terms, under no circumstances does the President reopen the government nor does he use his emergency powers to build the wall, because after all, the erection of a wall through the Presidential emergency powers will be insufficient to solve the calamity that exists at our southern border nor will it address the thousands of people that reside in this country illegally through visa overstays. The President has done a great job at bringing the problem of our border security to the forefront of the American psyche, and with that has come a brilliant opportunity to permanently solve this blemish on our nation and its policies.
 
As far as the President is concerned, if the Democrats do not deliver, he rides their failure all the way to his re-election. And then we'll see what strength-of-will the American people, and more importantly, that subgroup of Americans who fundamentally care about the future of our country, possess.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
After much pain and consternation, the confrontation over a government shutdown is now temporarily over.  Yesterday, President Trump announced a deal that would reopen the government for three weeks, allow furloughed workers to be paid, and restore some of the not-so-non-essential personnel, like TSA workers, to real-time compensation status. By the end of the day, Congress passed a bill to implement the deal, and the wheels were set in motion for the restoration of a precarious state of normalcy within our federal government.  
 
Most notably, of course, the deal did not include money for wall funding.
 
Yes, the President blinked yesterday.  For all his bravado, for all his claims to never lose, for all his toughness and snide remarks on Twitter, the President capitulated yesterday, giving up, at least temporarily, one of the most powerful bargaining chips in his possession. Now, the real question is, what will the Democrats do?
 
Clearly, the Democrats' position in the confrontation has been insupportable. According to them, the presence of a wall at key locations throughout our border is "immoral;" ICE needs to be defunded; and it is best for humanity if people are allowed to cross from one nation to the next without restriction and without accountability.  For Democrats, the global human population represents a blob of amorphous protoplasm free to flow across the continents according to the relative attractiveness of the various milieus even if the end result is to destroy the new location where it chooses to reside. 
 
Of course, the Democrats' position is nonsensical.  Yes, it represents emotion-laden fodder for its liberal wing, but it is irreconcilably incompatible with a nation's continued existence.  So now that the Democrats have moved from a position of being a relatively powerless minority in Congress to being in a position to grind the legislative wheels to a halt if it does not get its way, what will they do next? 
 
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are childishly gloating over their ostensible defeat of the President.  According to Schumer, he hopes this is a moment that has taught the President a lesson.  But once the Speaker and he come down from their celebratory high, they will still be faced with the challenge of solving the issue of border security in the face of another round of largely ineligible asylum seekers making their way to the southern border.
 
The fact is that the plan the President proposed, the same plan the Democrats resoundingly rejected, one that allots $805 million for technology, canines, and personnel to help stop the flow of illegal drugs, weapons and other contraband; $675 million for drug-detection inspection technology to help secure our ports of entry; $130 million for canine units, training, personnel and portable scanners to help deter and detect smuggled narcotics, weapons, and other dangerous materials coming across the border; $800 million in humanitarian assistance, medical support, and new temporary housing for immigrants; $782 million to hire an additional 2,750 border agents, law enforcement officers, and staff for added border security; $563 million to support our immigration court system including hiring 75 new immigrationjudge teams to reduce the immigration court backlog of 800,000 cases; enhancement of the nation's visa monitoring and enforcement assets; and some form of residency provision for DACA recipients that does not include a path to citizenship is pretty close to the final answer.  
 
And of course, the President is right, regardless of the other components, any final product must include the erection of walls spanning critical junctures of America's southern border.
 
One thing that has materialized from the last few months of zealous discussion is the materialization of a permanent solution to border security.  That path is now well defined.  The real question is whether the Democrats can stomach going back on their false assertions and support the same components they so recently and hypocritically dismissed. 
 
Personally, I think they can't.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
The Author acknowledges the work of David Kopel and Vincent Harinam, cited below, on which the Author relied heavily.
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
With all deference to hunters and sportsmen, it wasn't their right to hunt that inspired James Madison and our nation's First Congress to include the Second Amendment in their proposed Bill of Rights.  There's was a much greater concern, that of checking the power of a potentially tyrannical state.  The modern left dismisses this argument as nonsensical, superfluous, and yes, even hysterical.  But despite its foolish attempts at diminishing the importance of gun ownership as a check on government, the fact still remains that the concern was central in the minds of the Framers.  Perhaps Noah Webster, that great American scholar and teacher whom we have all come to know by way of his dictionary, put it best when he wrote, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
 
Indeed, history has seen the pattern of gun right suppression in coordination with the rise of tyranny and oppression play out time and again.  China, Nazi Germany, communist Cuba, Russia, North Korea are but a few examples.  In fact, in keeping with Webster's observation, the propagation of a dictatorship would be difficult to conceive if imposed upon a well-armed population.  And now, as we witness the financial and societal collapse of our southern neighbor, it is evident that Venezuela is no exception. 
 
In 2012, Venezuela's, communist National Assembly banned gun ownership.  The stated reason for such an intervention is the oft-quoted safety argument.  In 2011, 40% of Caracas's homicides were robbery related with armed robberies accounting for 70% of all major crimes.
 
Predictably, the government's call for voluntary disarmament produced virtually no results, leading to the forcible confiscation of 12,603 firearms in 2013 alone.
 
The result? A rise in violence against police officers, and most ominously, a rise in violence by the state against its own citizens.  
 
In 2015 alone, 252 law enforcement officers were killed in Venezuela.  Why?  Well, in Venezuela, police officers are targeted for their firearms![1]  
 
Additionally, when Venezuelans took to the streets to protest the "unjust laws" of which Webster wrote centuries ago, the state used live ammunition to quiet them down.  And like Cuba, Maduro's regime established a group of colectivos, groups of local individuals charged with the implementation and enforcement of Maduro's policies, except that, in Venezuela, 400,000 of them were officially armed and allowed to "carry out the regime's rule by violence." 
 
And what about the national homicide rate?  The rate government was trying to suppress? It actually rose from 73 per 100,000 in 2012 right before the ban was implemented to 90 per 100,000 in 2015.  In fact, in 2015 Venezuela faced the world's highest homicide rate with 27,875 murders.  
 
There are elements within our country obsessed with restricting our gun rights.  Yes, there are sections in our country where gun violence reigns supreme.  And yes, the recurrently played out stories of senseless killings and associated suffering is tragic beyond words.  But there is no greater tragedy than a people who once given freedom are robbed of their liberties in pursuit of false assurances of safety and protection.  
 
Truly, Madison was not thinking of our right to hunt when he penned our Second Amendment.  He was thinking of much more ominous possibilities, the same eventualities that inspired Thomas Jefferson to proclaim, "it is [our] right and [our] duty to be at all times armed."
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
The Author acknowledges the work of David Kopel and Vincent Harinam, cited below, on which the Author relied heavily.
 
 
 


[1]  David Kopel, Vincent Harinam, In The Wake Of A Gun Ban Venezuela Sees Rising Homicide Rate, The Hill, April 19, 2018.   https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/383968-in-the-wake-of-a-gun-ban-venezuela-sees-rising-homicide-rate on January 25, 2019.

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
In places like New York City, oppressive municipalities have gotten away with banning a variety of self-defense weapons under the guise of them not being covered by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  As the arguments go, these municipalities have important reasons, usually centered on the public's protection against gang violence, compelling the need to prohibit possession of these self-defense weapons.  As a result, things like nunchucks, Chinese stars, Chinese sticks, stun guns, and even pepper spray are prohibited items.  In New York, for example, the mere possession of mace is illegal.  
 
But things may be changing thanks to the Hellerdecision.  In District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Washington, D.C., ordnance prohibiting gun owners from keeping unlocked and loaded guns inside their homes.  The decision was monumental for gun rights advocates because, among other statements, the Supreme Court said, for the first time in American jurisprudence, that one of the purposes of keeping and bearing arms is self-defense.  Employing a detailed analysis of the admittedly awkward language in the Second Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority opinion, explained that the First Congress did not merely have protections related to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia in mind when they passed the provision.  The protections, Scalia explained, also related to essential right of individuals to defend themselves.
 
Now, it appears that "the right to keep and bear arms" does not exclusively apply to firearms.  In a recent case brought in federal court by a New York attorney expert in martial arts who was frustrated by not being able to pass his weapons to his kids, the trial judge shot down the city's prohibition against the manufacture, purchase, and possession of switchblade knives, gravity knives, pilum ballistic knives, metal knuckle knives, billy, blackjack, bludgeons, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, Kung Fu stars, chuka sticks, sandbags, sandclubs or slungshots.  In her order, the judge cited the language in Helleras controlling regarding the attorney's right to possess these weapons.  The judge also borrowed language from a recently decided Supreme Court case, Caetano v. Massachusetts.
 
In Caetano, a woman who had been accosted by her ex-boyfriend despite a restraining order pulled out a stun gun when he attacked her, at night, in a public park, even though the city prohibited its possession and use. The Court upheld Caetano's right to possess and deploy the stun gun as a protection afforded to her in the Second Amendment.  According to the Court, the mere fact that such weapons may be dangerous was insufficient reason to uphold the ban.  “If Hellertells us anything," the Court opined, "it is that [weapons] cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous,” since the “relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.”
 
In short, there are some common threads weaving through these cases.  First, the Second Amendment is no longer the exclusively applicable to firearms and guns. And second, and equally as important, the Court's new outlook on these rights means the natural chipping away at the municipalities' powers to keep law abiding citizens from possessing and using them.  
 
And for that, we have the late Justice Scalia to thank.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 

Nancy Pelosi Is Solely To Blame For The State Our Government Is in Today.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Fox News Host Sheppard Smith seems to relish reciting his perception of the events leading to the government shutdown.  According to Shep, President Trump called a meeting with then Incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.  During that meeting, the President said he was going to shut down the government, that he would carry the happily mantel, and that he was not going to blame Schumer for it.  
 
And, as Shep, likes to say, "That's it."
 
Of course the purpose of Smith's repeated recitation is to make it clear why, in his view, the President is responsible for the government shutdown.  The truth is that the dynamics of the events leading to the government shutdown is more complicated than what Smith espouses, but while who bears the responsibility for the government shutdown may be debatable, there is only one party responsible for its propagation, the Democratic Party. And within that Party, there is only one person who has demonstrated the recalcitrance, selfishness, and irresponsibility to singlehandedly carry the blame.  That person is Nancy Pelosi.  
 
That Pelosi is the single most disruptive person in government continues to brightly shine.  In the history of the United States, there has never been a Speaker who has refused a willing President wishing to directly deliver the State of the Union Address to the House of Representatives.  
 
The delivery of a report on the state of the union is a constitutional requirement under Article II, Section 3.  However, the Constitution does not prescribe the manner in which such a report is to be delivered.  The tradition of an in-person delivery of the State of the Union was begun by George Washington himself, who, on January 8, 1790, while the seat of government was still in New York, took a stroll from his residence to Congress to deliver his report.  
 
The tradition was discontinued by Thomas Jefferson who thought the endeavor to regal in appearance only to have the tradition resurrected by Woodrow Wilson in 1913.  Although some presidents have chosen to deliver the speech in writing, no president who has desired to deliver the speech in person has ever been turned down; that is until Nancy Pelosi did so on Wednesday.  Pelosi's selfish, immature, and arrogant action caps a series of events making it clear that Pelosi is the sole reason for the propagation of this shutdown, and no one else.
 
Bear in mind that Pelosi was the one who forced the government shutdown by refusing to allocate "one dollar" to help fund the wall, a wall for whose funding she has voted in the past.  Nancy Pelosi is the one person who had the authority to reprimand one of her members for calling the President a viciously vile word and did not take it.  (Contrast this with the Republicans' swift and decisive sanction of Representative Steve King in response to his comments on white supremacy.)  Nancy Pelosi is the one who supported her members traveling to Puerto Rico while the government was shut down.  It was Nancy Pelosi who attempted to leave the country for about a week this week, virtually guaranteeing that furloughed workers would miss their second paycheck. And it was Nancy Pelosi who rejected the President's third known compromise proposal before even giving him the opportunity to deliver it.  
 
Many like to point the finger at President Trump for having partially shut down the government.  I would argue the point, but okay.  Whether we agree on that point or not is subject to discussion.  One thing is clear, however, the only reason our federal government is in the position it's in today rests only on the shoulders of one recalcitrant, arrogant, selfish, and disruptive individual: Nancy Pelosi.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
There was a time in our nation's history when speaking ill of one's country while overseas was shunned.  There was a time when politicians made it a point to keep their negative comments about the President at home and tried to not criticize their fellow citizens while they were in foreign soil.  
 
That time has long since past.  
 
As best as I can tell, the turning point was the election of President Bill Clinton.  While he worked with Senator William Fulbright, Clinton became deeply involved in antiwar activism.  By 1969, Clinton found himself in England shamefully organizing antiwar protests in London against his home country.  Clinton's opponents brought his activities to light during his first presidential run. The talk at the time was of the deplorable nature of an American who would go to a foreign country to air out America's internal conversations and cast his country in a negative light. For any other politician, Clinton's conduct of foreign, antiwar activism would have been the death knell for a presidential bid, but it wasn't for this saxophone-playing, shades-wearing, womanizing politician.  Bill Clinton was untouchable, and his past indiscretions were not about to slow him down.
 
Those of us on the right looked at such disrespectful behavior with scorn and were distraught at the direction we foresaw the nation's standards going.  
 
Enter John Kerry.  His rancid behavior was, in many ways, the obverse of Bill Clinton's.  Kerry was a Vietnam veteran who came back to the United States and spoke ill about his fellow veterans claiming to have witnessed atrocities that he was not in a position to have seen.  His commentaries were so unsubstantiated that Congressman Joe Wilson called it "one of the worst public slanders ever against the valor and character of the American military."
 
Kerry, of course, lost his presidential bid, although it was likely due to his exacerbations of his military service rather than his performance before the senatorial committee in 1971.  
 
Since that time, however, it has become acceptable for our nation's leaders to speak ill of the United States while abroad, a behavior that was likely perfected by President Barack Hussein Obama.  
 
And there is no sign of this kind of treasonous behavior stopping; the latest manifestation of it being the conduct of Kerry himself.  On Tuesday, during his trip to Davos for the World Economic Summit, Kerry did not pass up any opportunities to speak ill of his country.  When speaking of his President's absence, Kerry falsely claimed that it was because the President did not care about those in attendance.  In fact, it has been meticulously documented that the President canceled his trip to Davos because of the inappropriateness of his attendance in light of an ongoing government shutdown.  
 
When analyzing President Trump's reasons for withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, it was not good enough that he should voice a policy disagreement with the President, rather Kerry claimed that the President had lied about the Agreement, what it did, and what it did not do.  
 
And most egregiously, when asked what message he had for the President of the United States, Kerry simply said, "Resign."  
 
Clearly, Kerry's conduct is revolting, but worse yet, the direction in which he, Bill Clinton, and (lest we should forget) Jane Fonda sent the etiquette of overseas political discourse has hurt and continues to damage our nation.  There are certain observations that are best made within the ambit of our nation's borders and not while away from home so that our enemies can capitalize on our discord.  For those who understand the necessity of upholding this standard, it is high time we demand a return to a reality where such demeaning behavior while in a foreign country is once again eschewed.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
At an event in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr., on Monday, Socialist Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continued to espouse her contemptible views on economics and social order when she was asked if a world that allowed for the existence of billionaires was moral.  
 
"No, it's not," said the freshman representative.  She then explained that the billionaires themselves were not the ones who were immoral.  "I don't think that necessarily means all billionaires are immoral.  It's not to say someone like Bill Gatesor Warren Buffett are immoral people."  She continued, “I’m not saying that, but I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,”
 
So, let's get this straight, in the strange and ominous world of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the one who seeks billions is okay, but the fact that he or she is allowed to amass billions is not.  Therefore, in Ocasio-Cortez's world, the billionaires are to be eliminated.  She doesn't say how, whether it's by termination or taxation, but the end result is they are to be regulated out of existence. The irony is that regardless of which method is chosen to correct the error, both the outcome and solution are even more immoral than the problem Ocasio-Cortez has arbitrarily and capriciously chosen to create.  If the former is selected, then the state will be in the business of ending the lives of individuals who have engaged in the sin of amassing more than a randomly defined amount of money.  If the latter, then it is their property we are going to steal.
 
If those comments weren't sufficient, Ocasio-Cortez then went on to suggest that even those companies she does not like ought to be placed under the crosshairs of government: "I think it’s wrong that corporations like Wal-Mart and Amazon can get paid."  So now, companies engaged in the good faith enterprise in the free market should not get paid for the incredible work they do and for the benefits they bring to society.
 
The fact is that all of the interventions, which Ocasio-Cortez proposes have been previously tried, and we know exactly what the systems for which she espouses look like.  History will tell the oppressiveness of collectivist states and their failures.  Estimates are that over 115 million people have been slaughtered in the name of socialism, communism, or fascism; never mind the countless other atrocities that have been realized.  
 
But amidst the nonsense, there is one little phrase the Representative threw that gives us a clue as to the direction the American left is trying to take their tyrannical agenda. "I think that it’s wrong," she said, "that a vast majority of the country does not make a living-great wage."
 
Take note.  For the American left, it is no longer sufficient to argue, in addition to the eradication of billionaires and nationalization of Wal-Mart and Amazon, for the implementation of a living wage.  The concept is now for the implementation of a "living-great wage."  Whatever that means.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

​
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
A most unpredictable series of events were set into motion on Friday in Washington, D.C., when a group of young men from Covington Catholic High School proceeded to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to wait for their bus.  The youngsters, high school students all, had been just engaged in peaceful activity, one that all of us should at least consider doing.  They were there to stand up for the lives of the most innocent and silent among us.  They were there representing the dignity and value of the lives of the unborn.  And they were there in the name of Christ.
 
That something would go dreadfully wrong, I'm sure, was never contemplated.  Of course, the students, faculty, and parents of Covington Catholic High School planned for all sorts of unexpected, but foreseeable, situations.  They, I'm sure, discussed what to do if one of them got lost or separated from the group. They planned for the unlikely event that one or more would get arrested, I'm sure.  And they likely spoke about handling medical emergencies.  
 
But what to do when you're minding your business and an American Indian Marine Veteran comes face to face with you while a radical, self-proclaimed Hebrew group is harassing you, I'm equally sure, was never addressed, nor were there instructions on how to handle the death threats that would follow.
 
I wondered if Covington Catholic High School was anything like my alma matter, Belen Jesuit Preparatory High School in Miami.  My school, also an all-boy institution, makes it its mission to create "men for others."  My high school instills in each of us the realization that we are all created in God's image and that it is, therefore, our duty to spend our lives devoted to the betterment of the human condition.  
 
But tragically, I am unable to find Covington's mission at this time because I can't access its server; surely a result of precautionary actions taken by the school.
 
What could have happened that was so terrible?  What could have served as such a detriment to the school?  
 
The answer is chilling: the mainstream media happened.
 
As the story goes and videos seem to confirm, the kids from Covington had finished participating in the March For Life Friday and had made their way to the Lincoln Memorial to await the arrival of their bus.  The wait was protracted so the kids began chanting school cheers.  
 
Across from them stood another group called the Black Hebrew Israelites.  This group has a long history of problems, having earned the reputation of being black supremacists and racists.  Its conduct has been so hateful that even the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing protectionist group, has called it out for its bigotry and scorn.  
 
As is now clear, the Black Hebrew Israelites began harassing the Covington students, likely because of their MAGA hats and other pro-Trump gear.  During the exchange, an American Indian Marine Veteran named Nathan Phillip accompanied by a small group of Native Americans slowly made his way between the two groups while rhythmically beating his drum.  Phillips approached one of the students, who did nothing but stand still in front of him, at one point coming "within centimeters of his face."  Initially, the student smiled back at Phillips, a smile that has been called everything from authentic to smug and racist.  
 
By all accounts, it appears that the students were confused by Phillip's intention prompting one student to later recount, "We initially thought this was a cultural display since he was beating along to our cheers and so we clapped to the beat. (sic)
 
“He came to stand in front of one of my classmates who stood where he was, smiling and enjoying the experience.  However, after multiple minutes of Mr. Phillips beating his drum directly in the face of my friend (mere centimeters from his nose), we became confused and started wondering what was happening.
 
“It was not until later that we discovered they would incriminate us as a publicity stunt. As a result, my friend faces expulsion for simply standing still.”
 
Much later indeed.
 
Noticing that this was not a positive exchange, the chaperones cleared the approximately 200 students from the area.  A review of the videos seems to indicate that the kids never insulted Phillips and his group, nor were there any racial slurs launched at the members of the Black Hebrew Israelites.  Indeed, it appeared that the confrontation ended well and that the chaperones had successfully handled a situation that could have been much worse.  
 
That is until the media got involved. 
 
Hours later, in fact, as they were in the bus on their way back to Kentucky, the teachers began getting word of the full-fledged attack being launched against the kids.  CNN, of course, claimed the kids were racists and that they had physically prevented the passage of an American Indian Marine who was peacefully attending the Mall. The kids were falsely depicted as having affirmatively accosted the man and that they were slinging racial epithets at him.  Soon thereafter, the death threats flew.  National Reviewwrote a defamatory piece about the school where it was said the students "might as well have spit on the cross."  The comment was so defamatory and inaccurate that it was later deleted.  
 
And Bill Kristol, one who is never hesitant to demonstrate his ability to engage in buffoonery tweeted, "The contrast between the calm dignity and quiet strength of Mr. Phillips and the behavior of #MAGA brats who have absorbed the spirit of ---------this spectacle is a lesson which all Americans can learn," and " If some kid wearing a McCain 2008 cap had been filmed behaving this way, McCain would have already called Mr. Phillips to express regret. And he would have used the occasion to remind his supporters they should treat others with respect. Will Trump do anything like this?"
 
Of course, about all we were reminded about is that Bill Krystol is an idiot.
 
Of course, this rancid behavior of gang violence against unsuspecting conservatives has come to be expected from the press and is yet another example of why Americans have lost all faith in that formerly indispensable institution. 
 
Sadly, there is irony all over this story, from the attacks upon good by the forces of evil to the oppressive consequences upon those daring to support the unborn to the reverberations of the words of Jesus Christ himself who said in the beatitudes, "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me"
 
But to me, there is greater sadness that these racially charged events, events of vile and hatred launched against white males, took place on the same weekend we have designated to remember the acts of peace and love between the races undertaken by one Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
Clearly, King's dream has not yet been realized.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
For some time, I have been saying that 2019 is going to be a great year for conservatives. For the first time in recent history, we are faced with a situation where there exists a divided Congress with a President who is holding firmly to conservative positions.  As a result, we now are able to contrast conservative approaches to our nation's problems directly with those taking liberal positions.  
 
So far, 2019 has held true to this expectation with the outlandish proposals made by Democrats on such matters as Medicare for all and a 70% marginal tax rate.  
 
But the contrast is spanning far beyond substantive differences.  The differences between the quality of leadership displayed by Democrats and those of Republicans is also stark.  Already, we have seen glaring examples of dysfunctionality from the left in the actions of Rashida Talib with her use of foul language to refer to the President of the United States and Hank Johnson's insults of Trump supporters as Nazis who are dying from drug overdose and broken hearts.  
 
On the other hand, when Steve King so much as questioned the evil of white nationalism, the reaction from the Republican ranks was swift and clear. He was openly reprimanded and quickly stripped of his committee assignments.
 
Indeed, the latest example of the Democrats' dysfunctionality happened yesterday when Nancy Pelosi disinvited President Donald J. Trump from delivering the State of the Union Address in the House Chambers on January 29.  In her letter (available in the Library under "Breaking"), Pelosi claims that the reason she would not be offering the Chamber for the President's constitutionally-required report is because of security considerations since, after all, we are in the midst of a government shutdown and will therefore not be able to ensure the safety of those in attendance.  
 
There are a number of glaring inconsistencies in Pelosi's statement that reveal her letter to be a complete fraud.  First, in true Democratic fashion of not allowing the truth of the matter to interfere with their argument, Pelosi didn't even bother to call Secret Service to find out whether they would actually not be ready. In point of fact, Secret Service is ready to ensure the security of those in attendance at the State of the Union Address and would have told Pelosi as much had she or anyone from her office bothered to ask!
 
Just as impressively and inconsistently, Pelosi's original invitation to the President was dated after the government shutdown had started.  In other words, since the government was already shut down when Pelosi wrote the letter, nothing has changed that would have altered her position.  
 
Finally, and more subtly, Pelosi's exaggerated concern for the attendees to the State of the Union Address begs the question of why she isn't just as concerned about the security of our borders and the wellbeing of the American people.  Obviously, she values the safety of her fellow politicians more than she does that of the people of the United States.
 
Nancy Pelosi's positions have always been contemptible and motivated by her own selfish aspirations.  Although many of us in the conservative ranks have appreciated this for years, 2019 is giving us the opportunity to bring Pelosi's selfishness to the forefront.  Her immature, disingenuous, and sophomoric behavior regarding the State of the Union Address is no exception.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
On January 11th, The New York Times published an article detailing how the FBI initiated an investigation of the President of the United States as a result of James Comey's firing.  According to the Times, the action was in response to a series of events leading to the conclusion that the President could have been "knowingly working for Russia, or . . . unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence."
 
Predictably for The New York Times, which has been unable to break the spell of its own bias against the President since Hillary Clinton's resounding defeat, the story heralded the seriousness of the concerns regarding President Donald J. Trump.  In point of fact, the article was really about something much starker and much more threatening to the nation's stability. The story actually heralded the zeal and brazenness with which members at the highest levels of government were willing to pursue an attempt to depose a sitting president.
 
At another time such overt efforts to decapitate the American government would have been considered overtly mutinous if not treasonous.  The President of the United States is not merely the Nation's Chief Executive Officer, nor is he merely the Politician in Chief.  The President's most important function is, in fact, his role as the civilian Commander In Chief of our armed forces.  Upon him rests the ultimate decisions regarding policy and action relating to the deployment and mobilization of the brave men and women making up our military.  When the President makes a decision regarding actions to be undertaken, it must be met with unbridled fidelity in its execution.   Undermining his actions represents a threat to national security and to our foundational structure.  
 
Alarmingly, since President Trump’s election, the effort by members inside his own government to disrupt the chain of command and to bring about dissension among the ranks has become too common.  In the spring of 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein suggested that he secretly record the President of the United States to determine whether Trump was engaging in erratic behavior that could trigger his removal from office under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.  Subsequently, Rosenstein dismissed these comments as benign jovialities undertaken in the mundaneness of an average workday, but the veracity of his explanation has yet to be universally accepted.
 
Now, we hear of the investigation undertaken by the FBI designed to determine whether the President was working as a Manchurian candidate of sorts.  The thought that a group of delectable agency hands are in a position to singlehandedly undertake an investigation of the President of the United States while working for him and without any oversight from anyone outside their ranks is, frankly, frightening.[i]
 
And these two are not the only examples of attempted disruptions.  Famously, and disgustingly, Agent Peter Strzock and his paramorous coworker, Lisa Paige, boasted of how they were going to make sure that President Trump not get elected, and even if he did, they still had a back-up plan that could be executed while Trump was in office.  
 
In another article, The Wall Street Journal reported that a source from inside the White House informed them that National Security Advisor John Bolton asked the Pentagon to provide him with military options for attacking Tehran.  The inquiry was alleged undertaken following militant activity in Baghdad.
 
Of course, The Wall Street Journal story is another example of insubordination by members of the administration who seek to undermine the President through their leaks to the press.  
 
But perhaps more disturbing is the reaction from members of the Pentagon and the State Department. According to The Wall Street Journal, the mere inquiry by Bolton "triggered unusual alarm in Washington," and "[p]eople were shocked."  Why anyone would be "shocked" that the President, or at least his National Security Advisor, would research all available options in the event military conflict became necessary is inexplicable when, in fact, the country would require that the President's staff be aware of all such options.  
 
Defense Secretary James Mattis is the dissenter who came closest to properly handling his objections.  In Mattis's case, his concern revolved around the President's announcement that he would be quickly removing American troops from Syria. Mattis's concern centered about the abandonment of Kurdish fighters who had so loyally assisted the United States in its prior regional missions.  Faced with the possibility of having to support a policy he did not support, Mattis tendered his resignation, but still, he could not help but inject himself in the political discourse and express his opinion about the President's Middle Eastern policy as he exited the administration.  Mattis's letter, although respectful, resulted in much unnecessary discussion regarding presidential loyalty; uncertainties exploitable by America's rivals and enemies, and of course, an overtly hostile press.
 
In their totality, these events suggest an environment of insubordination and disregard for the integrity of the Office of the President of the United States that is quickly reaching a level negatively impacting America's readiness and security.  
 
For those working in the White House, the Pentagon, and any part of our armed forces, the question before you is simple: are you loyal to the nation and to the Office of the President of the United States?  If the answer is no, then resign.  And if your objection is so strong that you would like to see policy and leadership changes as a result of them, then undertake your political advocacy in the open and outside the White House gates.  
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
[i]Not lost in the story is The New York Times passive acceptance of this kind of insubordination from within the highest levels of the nation's political infrastructure, but that's another story altogether. 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
On January 10, City of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh announced his legislative agenda for 2019.  In what represents the latest leftist assault on privacy rights and gun ownership, the Mayor proposed that medical professionals be required ". . . to ask patients about the presence of guns in their homes. . . "  The government mandated interrogation is to be undertaken ". . . with the goal of identifying red flags that could indicate risks relative to suicide, domestic violence, or child access to guns."  
 
In point of fact, the Mayor's proposal is the latest end-around towards developing a comprehensive registry of gun ownership within Boston, a clear violation of Bostonians' privacy rights and an intimidation tactic designed to shame gun owners into relinquishing their guns.  
 
Amazingly, the topic of physician inquiries into their patients' gun ownership status is marred with controversy.  This is largely due to the incredulous position and legislative efforts undertaken by the American Academy of Pediatrics in support of banning handguns.  In 1992, the AAP, an organization created for the purpose of promoting pediatrician education and representing issues important to pediatricians, actually thought it was sound legislative policy to intrude onto the expressed constitutional rights of American citizens by supporting legislation that would "prohibit the possession, sale or manufacture of handguns in the United States." Stupidly, the AAP then went on to post it on their website as one of its stated missions.
 
The issue came to a head when, in the State of Florida, legislation was introduced that would fine a physician $5 million for merely asking a patient if he or she had a gun in his or her home.  The proposed legislation arose from an incident where a dense physician in Ocala, Florida, refused to see a patient because she would not disclose her gun ownership status.  The logical and sane conclusion to the controversy would have been for the woman to simply see another doctor and share with her friends and community the lunacy of the physician through personal or media communications.  At most, she could have reported this physician's unethical practice to the Board of Medicine and let the issue play itself out that way.  Instead, she chose to approach her state legislator who propagated the insanity by proposing a multi-million dollar punishment for physicians who merely ask a question.  The fact that the state legislature even considered the bill is a testament to the absurdity of the times in which we live.
 
Ultimately, the bill was watered down so that what was passed, the Firearms Owners' Privacy Protections Act (FOPA), prohibited physicians from documenting a patient's gun ownership status unless it was directly relevant to the care of the patient.  The bill also prohibited physicians from discriminating against an individual based on the person's gun ownership status.  Violation of the law was punishable by ". . . a fine of up to $10,000.00, a letter of reprimand, probation, suspension, compulsory remedial education, or permanent license revocation."
 
The ensuing multi-year, multi-million-dollar, social and legal controversy ended with an Eleventh Circuit Federal Court ruling tossing the law out as unconstitutional, but the ridiculous, unnecessary, and painful process did bring to light a number of issues regarding the nexus between health care, medical documentation, and personal liberties.  
 
First, indisputably, a physician ought to be able to ask a patient about guns.  The issue of accidental gun deaths is a serious problem in American society.  Anywhere between 77 and 113 pediatric, gun-related deaths take place in our country each year.  Efforts at curtailing these deaths are generally laudable, and the fact is that primary care physicians such as pediatricians engage in all sorts of health screenings designed to prevent disease or injury.  Gun safety should be no different.  
 
On the other hand, gun ownership is a cherished right that is to be zealously guarded. Any organization, including the AAP, seeking to decimate that right must be vehemently opposed.  The act of refusing a gun owner service merely because that owner is wishing to protect a right expressly enshrined in the Constitution is unconscionable and becomes even more egregious when the patient's ownership status becomes part of his or her permanent record and accessible by the government.  Perhaps, the greater problem is our acquiescence to government funding of our health care and to giving it access to our personal information, but that is another issue altogether.  
 
The principal benefit to our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is to provide a check upon the power of government.  That effect is undoubtedly endangered when the government is allowed to know exactly who owns such weapons and unduly regulates who accesses them.
 
Florida and its physicians learned valuable lessons about gun rights and health care through its experience with the Doc v. Glocks drama; lessons that apparently were not heeded by Mayor Marty Walsh.  
 
Mayor Walsh's proposal is vastly more draconian than either the Ocala physician's actions or the state legislature’s response to it.  Walsh wants to mandate that physicians interrogate patients about gun ownership.  This would no longer be a situation where a pretentious physician on an individual basis decides to ask a question to the point of sacrificing his relationship with his patient.  What Walsh is proposing is that physicians work as agents of the state to collect information from patients regarding their most sacred rights and record it for the government's benefit.  The very idea of this proposal strikes a dictatorial and oppressive tone. 
 
Adding to the tyrannical optics, it is the Police Commissioner who is out in public heralding the benign intent of the proposal. Boston Police Commissioner William Gross explained that the goal would be to identify those at risk for domestic violence, suicide or child access to guns in order to guide people to mental health counseling, resources or other help. In short, he said, "We’re just asking [medical professionals] to help identify ways to save lives.” 
 
Isn't it interesting that practically every oppressive idea proposed by the left is buttressed by the goal of saving lives?  And by the way, despite the Police Commissioner's comment, the government wouldn't be asking for help, it would be mandating it.  In short, anyone harboring a concern regarding excessive governmental intrusion ought to instinctively recall Benjamin Franklin's words: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
 
From a practical nature, it is clear that neither the Mayor nor the Police Commissioner have given their proposal sufficient thought.  Not only does their recommendation clearly intrude on people's liberties, but what happens when a patient refuses to divulge such information? Are we going to refuse him or her treatment?  Will we fine him or her, or jail the person?  What happens if a physician refuses to participate?  And what happens if there is a gun-related accident, death, or suicide following a contact with a physician, does the doctor become liable? 
 
Mayor Marty Shaw's proposal is a bad idea at so many levels.  It is draconian, offensive to the Constitution, disrespectful to the free and unencumbered practice of medicine, and an undue intrusion into patient's privacy rights.  Bostonians must oppose it lest the mayor's disease spread elsewhere.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
On January 7th, the same day President Trump appeared on national television to discuss immigration, the government shutdown, and border security, New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio announced that the City of New York will guarantee health care for everyone regardless of insurance or immigration status.  In all, the plan will cover 600,000 people, half of whom are undocumented, and he is going to do it for $100 million.  In fact, argued the mayor, the program will not cost the city anything because of the savings realized from the dramatic reductions in emergency room care.
 
In defense of the plan, De Blasio averred that health care is a right and that it is time for New Yorkers to start conducting their affairs as such.  Since the federal government is trying to disrupt our health care system, he proclaimed, it is time for New Yorkers to take matters into their own hands and guarantee people's inherent right to health care.  
 
Despite De Blasio's uncontained enthusiasm, there are two fatal problems with his program.  First, as we know and the left continues to ignore, health carenot a right.  And second, in point of fact, his amazing program adds virtually nothing to what New Yorkers already have at their disposal
 
Health Care Is Not A Right.
 
What is a right?  
 
There are many different kinds of rights. First, there is the undisputed interest. This is what attaches when one has a just or legal claim or title upon a property or object, such as when one strikes gold in a Nevada minefield. Under those circumstances, the person owning the land or declaring his or her stake upon it has a right to that land and to the minerals within it.  This right is commensurate with ownership or possession.  Since health care is not a defined, palpable property, then this cannot be the type of right of which De Blasio speaks.  
 
A right can also be statutory; created by government.  In this case, the "right' is given to you by the government.  One example is the right to a trial by jury.  Here, one has the undisputed access to a trial by jury because the state has declared it to be the so.  This particular right is based on the foundational principles giving rise to the United States, the declarations contained within the Bill of Rights, and guaranteed by the constitutions of the various states.  
 
A statutory right is not inherently yours, as the government has provided it for you.  In other words, there would be no trial by jury; no trial at all in fact; if it weren't for the fact that the government constructed the framework with which to provide it.  Generally, this kind of right is associated with a price tag.  It takes money to hire a defense attorney, a prosecuting attorney, a judge, and a building in which to conduct it.  And yes, the jury is hired as well.  Since no American government has declared a statutory right to health care, this too is not the type of right to which De Blasio is referring.  
 
The third is the fundamental right, or human right; the ones the Founders called "inalienable."  These rights are afforded to us by the Creator.  They belong to us.  They are not for government to give or to take away, although under some circumstances, through the consent of the governed, government may regulate them.  Our inalienable rights include a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of property, the right to labor, the right to speak, the right to seek the truth, the right to defend yourself, the right to bear arms, the right to your own beliefs, and of course, the right to pursue happiness.  Each of these is yours by right.  They are inherent in you.  
 
It appears this last category of right is the one to which De Blasio refers when he speaks of a right to health care, but he would be wrong.  
 
You cannot have a right to health care because you need others to realize it.  What isyours, like the right to pursue happiness or property, is your right to pursuehealth care.  
 
So, is health care a privilege? Yes, it is.  
 
It is a privilege to have someone toil over you.  It is a privilege to have someone attend to you.  It is a privilege to have someone sell you something.  So when De Blasio says health care is a right, he is wrong.  It doesn't matter how many times he says it and repeats it, and that all the liberals say it and repeat it.  It doesn't matter that 100% of all people are convinced that health care is a right, it still doesn't make it a right because you can't force another person to slave and toil over you to obtain the product or service. 
 
What is a right is your freedom to approach someone offering the service and to ask him or her to provide the service.  That is the pursuit of health care and that is your right.  This is exactly in keeping with Benjamin Franklin's words, "The Constitution only give people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
 
 
De Blasio's Plan Is Mathematically Impossible.
 
De Blasio says he is going to cover 600,000 people with $100 million.  This would mean that his health care plan would cover 600,000 individual lives at a price tag of $167.00 per person per year.  
 
Sound too good to be true? That's because it is.
 
In point of fact, what De Blasio says he is going to achieve for New York for the first time in the city's history, New York already has.  New York City already spends $8 billion per year on health care to treat 1.1 million people who otherwise wouldn't have access to care.  This includes the undocumented.  The effort traces back to the 18th century with the inception of Belleview Hospital. Anyone without insurance can go there to get treated, either through the emergency room or through a primary care doctor.  
 
So if all these things already exist, what's De Blasio offering that's new?  
 
Nothing really, just better customer service.  
 
New York HHC Director Mitchell Katz said when asked on the matter, “You can definitely walk into any emergency room, you can go to a clinic, but what is missing is the good customer service to ensure that you get an available appointment. . . That’s what we’re missing and the mayor is providing.”  
 
The New York Times seemed to agree when it wrote,  "The $100 million would go to both establishing the customer service component and hiring additional doctors and nurses."  
 
Adding to the lacklusterness of the proposal is the uncertainty in the details, as is often the case when politicians try to take credit for nothing.  According to The New York Times, ". . . officials could not provide a breakdown of how much would be spent on each [component of the program].  Indeed, details of how those seeking care could do so under the new plan were not immediately clear, nor was an exact start date."  The Federalist Pages met with the same problem in its review of De Blasio's proposal.
 
The fact of the matter is that, predictably, the City of New York's less-than-utopian system is already present and operating; with a shortfall, of course.  For years New York's hospital system has been under severe financial strain.  Indeed, according to New York's Independent Budget Office, New York hospitals anticipate budget shortfalls of more than $156 million in 2018, increasing to $1.8 billion in 2022.
 
As expected, De Blasio continues to deceitfully sell fake, utopic visions.  It's high time sound policy analysts call him out on it.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Tonight, the President of the United States will be addressing the nation regarding the issue of border security.  It is expected that the President will provide a defense of his tough stance on his demands to fund the wall.  He will likely paint a dire picture of conditions south of the border. He will share with the country the challenges faced due to inadequate resources and the lack of a physical barrier. And in all likelihood the President's message will make sense and will resonate with the American people who, although squeamish on government shutdowns, overwhelmingly demand that the federal government enforce our borders and ensure our safety and welfare.
 
In response, Democrats have asked the networks for an opportunity to rebut; an opportunity they will surely be given.  But their request brings up two issues; one an inductive conclusion and the other an inescapable paradox.
 
The conclusion is that the Democrats worry they are losing the war of words regarding border security.  With every week that passes, the Democrats lose what they have always deployed as their greatest weapon regarding government shutdowns: shock value. Theirs is the tactic of equating a government shutdown with the end of the world.  They do this, not only to paint the Republicans as evil, uncaring, and irresponsible, but also because to Democrats, the role of government is indispensable to life in society.  Even a partial shutdown, for them, is tantamount to a cataclysmic natural disaster. 
 
But as the weeks grind on, the American people continue to see that the partial government shutdown, by and large, is not a threat to their daily existence.  People are continuing to get their healthcare.  Their banks are still doing business.  The military is still operating, and yes, the IRS is working on delivering those precious refund checks.  
 
But despite the fading, fake cataclysm of the shutdown, the permanent truth of the inadequacies of our border's security continues to shine. The problems south of the border continue to exist, and the multi-thousand-member caravans preparing to attempt to stroll into the United States continue to form.  
 
The net effect is a nasty, rancid, and tumultuous loss for the Democrats, and Democrats know it.  Add to their losing effort a presidential address on the matter from the Oval Office, and the result is potentially catastrophic to their indefensible cause.  It is for this reason that Democratic leaders wish to speak to the American people tonight, bringing us to the second issue: how can they speak when they won't even listen?
 
Democratic leaders, chief amongst these are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have engaged in the highly obnoxious and potentially destructive strategy of not listening to their political opponents, particularly to those may have developed an expertise on the field.  When border security agents appeared at the White House Press Room and discussed their first-hand accounts regarding the indispensable importance of a barrier to border security, the Democrats' dismissive answer was simply to say that the agents were wrong.  No facts to back them up; just the assertion.
 
And when President Trump invited Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen to a meeting with the President and leaders from both parties at the White House, Pelosi's and Schumer's response was to repeatedly interrupt her, and again, claim she was wrong.  
 
So now, the two leaders who have recurrently demonstrated an unwillingness and incapacity to listen to opposing points of view want us to listen to them.
 
My initial inclination is: what for?
 
The fact is that I, as opposed to them, will listen to what they have to say.  I will do this out of respect for our political process and because I recognize that our country has devolved to a state where we have refused to listen to each other, and Pelosi and Schumer have painted themselves into being part of the problem.  
 
In the end, however, I am confident I will side with the President for, amongst other reasons, his opponents' demonstrated reluctance to learn from what the President and those charged with working directly on the issue of border security have to say.  
 
Despite their appearance tonight to rebut the President, I will likely conclude that Pelosi and Schumer are part of the problem; not the solution.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pagesand served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 
 
 
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
The past two years have seen the Democrats' positions on issues falter.  With every Trumpist accomplishment, Democrats look increasingly petty and ineffective. Their economic arguments have failed under the weight of the most robust American economy since the post-World War II expansion and the lowest unemployment figures in nearly 50 years. Their Russian collusion arguments continue to ring hollow with the persistent absence of any evidence to support their contention.  Their claims of Republican delusions and paranoia regarding their obsession with border security has been toppled by the recurring waves of thousands of migrants hoping to enter the United States in whatever illegal manner they can.  And the Democrat plan of leading from behind continues to cause problems in a complex world debrided of the stabilizing effects of American influence.  
 
Devoid of any substantive weapons against what has become the most effective president in recent American history, the Democrats have resorted to engaging in a character assault against President Trump.  In support of their charge, they point to Trump's foul language.  They perseverate on his pre-candidate, private, and illegally recorded locker room banter regarding inter-gender relations.  They herald Trump's language in his rallies, calling it unpresidential and unbecoming of the Office of the Presidency of the United States.  
 
But such allegations imply that the accuser possesses a better alternative.  It suggests that the alleger reels in disgust because he or she holds himself or herself to a higher standard.  We assume this because making such allegations in the absence of such a self-imposed, higher standard would represent gross hypocrisy on the part of the accuser.  
 
Well, that's exactly what we're getting from the Democrats.  On the very first day of her tenure, Democratic Congresswoman and rising Muslim political darling, Rashida Tlaib, while speaking to a crowd of supporters, revealed that she had explained to her son that despite his concerns over bullies being able to prevail in life as evidenced by President Trump's inhabitance of the most powerful position on earth, he would soon see that bullies do not always win because the Democrats were going to "impeach the motherf***er." 
 
Her disgraceful conduct should have been a blow to all Democrats who had spent years condemning every indiscretion on the part of Donald Trump.  Both the tone and the language should have been held as a perfect example of the type of behavior Democrats would never tolerate from themselves because, after all, the Democrats demand a higher, more scrupulous level of conduct.  To not do so, after all, would be hypocritical and reveal the moral hollowness of the Democrat Party.  
 
But, alas, as in all things Democrat, they have once again failed to maintain the very standards they used to judge their Adversary in Chief.  When asked about Tlaib's foul language, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi dismissively said Tlaib's language was "nothing worse than what the president has said," as if, suddenly, it was the reviled President who set the standards for Democrats.  Pelosi was then quick to point out that she "was not in the censorship business."
 
It is true, Pelosi is not in the censorship business, but she has zealously pursued a position in the leadership business, and leadership means, if nothing else, holding those with whom you work and network to minimum standards of conduct. 
 
Clearly, the public use of the most despicable terms while in the public forum is nothing less than shameful.  Not only does it reflect poorly on the character of the actor, but also upon all those with whom he or she networks.
 
In a recent podcast, I explained that 2019 represented an incredible opportunity for those espousing responsible governance and leadership.  I predicted this would be a time where sage leadership would be directly juxtaposed against Democratic buffoonery.  Well, not a day went by before the Democrats flailed in their newfound position.
 
And I guarantee you it won't be long before the Democrats flail again.
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 
 

​by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
Following the publication of Mitt Romney's misguided op-ed piece in The Washington Post slamming President Donald Trump (the link to which can be found in the Library), a fundamental question immediately pops up: Can Mitt Romney defeat Joe Biden in the Democratic presidential primary?
 
To say the least, the publication of Romney's op-ed represents a mammoth misstep.  The words he shared about the President were not only openly hostile, but also demonstrated Romney's misperception of what the American people want in a President.  
 
For example, Romney wrote, "Trump’s words and actions have caused dismay around the world.  In a 2016 Pew Research Center poll, 84 percent of people in Germany, Britain, France, Canada and Sweden believed the American president would “do the right thing in world affairs.”  One year later, that number had fallen to 16 percent."
 
This was a terrible sentence.  For one, it opened the door for the President to emphasize his disregard for his European approval numbers while astutely pointing out that any drop in his European popularity serves as a direct testament to his zealous representation of the United States in the world's stage. 
 
Engrained in Romney's criticisms of Trump's approval numbers was a more subtle, but much more substantive point. Romney demonstrated that he, as opposed to Trump, follows European approval as a measure of a President's success. 
 
This latter point brings us to our next issue: it is simply because Romney cares about European approval numbers and Trump does not that Mitt will make a terrible president.  
 
There are many who wonder why Mitt Romney would make such a misguided and ill-advised move.  Indeed, his actions defy all logical explanations, except one: the op-ed was Romney's first salvo against the President of the United States whom he intends to take on for the Republican nomination.  Yet his comments were so arrogant and so out of touch with the viewpoints of rank and file Republicans that he has absolutely no chance at touching Trump in a primary challenge.  Indeed, Romney's misstep was so colossal that he stands a much better chance of winning the Democratic nomination.  (And not by way of complementing Romney, but he would immediately become the Democrat's best candidate.)
 
All of this brings us to a much bigger point; the issue of character, which Romney has consistently played as his strong suit.  During his run for President and again in his campaign for Senate, Romney eagerly sought Donald J. Trump's blessings.  Despite the misgivings that arose between the two during Trump's 2016 race, the President still gave Romney his blessings.  Yet, even before Romney has the opportunity to take the oath of his new office, he turns around and stabs the President in the back.  
 
The point here is very simple and laced with irony.  The fundamental and inescapable problem with Mitt Romney's op-ed yesterday is that while he eagerly attacks the President's character, he brings to full view the blatant flaws in his own.  
 
And that's the reason why Romney will never win another Republican nod for any office outside of his reelection in six years; provided, of course, that he stops messing up. 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and served in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.