by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
On November 27, 2018, Senator Chuck Schumer stood in the Capitol before a crowd of reporters and reassured them that Democrats favor border security.  Sadly, the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary.  
 
Democrats have long been engaged in a battle to dismantle America's border defenses.  On November 8, 1971, Berkeley, California became the first city in the United States to offer itself up as a sanctuary city. Many municipalities followed in the 1980s such that today, a host of local jurisdictions are refusing to cooperate with ICE.  (To access ICE's list of sanctuary jurisdictions click here.) 
 
To a tee, these municipalities are democratically controlled, and in 2017, California, a Democratic stronghold, became the first and still only sanctuary state.
 
As we know, imparting sanctuary status upon a jurisdiction serves to protect the illegal inhabitant from detainment by ICE, as the jurisdiction will not cooperate with such detainers.  Such a permissive policy serves as a magnet for illegal immigrants who stand a significantly lower chance of being turned over to federal authorities should they break the law.  
 
Democrats have also proclaimed their support for open borders.  Ignorantly, Democrats have repeatedly argued that the unencumbered flow of people across the border, including that of the United States, is a human right and should be allowed as a matter of justice.  They voice disdain at the Trump Administration's reticence in cooperating with the United Nation's global migration pact.  Specifically, in 2017, when President Trump said he would not be sending American representatives to the United Nations' conference on migration in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, Democrats attacked him over the decision.
 
It likely bears no need for explaining, but a no-borders policy by the United States and the world stands in direct opposition to efforts at securing America's borders.  
 
In 2018, when the caravan was headed north to America's southern border, Democrat elements denied the caravan's existence maintaining that it was a fabricated problem used by President Trump only for political expediency.  Today, these are the same Democrats decrying the horrible conditions of these migrants in the hopes that they are given free passage into the United States.
 
With few exceptions, the party leading the charge to maximize the standing for asylum seekers to gain legal entry into the United States is the Democratic Party.  The party that dismisses the injustice of having those same asylum seekers enter the United States, remain there for over three years before their case is evaluated by an immigration judge, and then not show up for the hearing is the Democrat Party.
 
The Democrats support catch and release and want to abolish ICE.  They oppose allocating $5.7 billion of the national, multi-trillion dollar budget to the construction of a wall at our southern borders despite the fact that the President has compromised on his initial ask of over $20 billion and despite the fact that the difference between the two parties is $3.3 billion. And when Senator Schumer repeatedly goes to the airwaves and says that the President will never get his wall despite risking a government shutdown, it is clear that Schumer could not care less about border security.
 
Adding to the evidence of their contempt for border security is the Democrats' ire towards any attempt at keeping illegal immigrants out of the United States and their repeated misrepresentations of both the demographics of the problem and America's justifiable response to it.
 
And let's not forget, it is the Democrat Party that remains silent when an illegal immigrant guns down an American citizen while ignoring the grave and unpalatable injustice of having had that illegal immigrant previously released by a sanctuary jurisdiction.
 
No.  Despite Schumer's reassurances, the Democrats are not in the least bit interested in border security.  They have never made it a driving issue for their party nor have they supported it actively in their daily undertakings.  Schumer's claim to the contrary represents a mere, disingenuous capitulation to the fact that the majority of Americans find controlling our borders fundamentally important to our security, our economy, and our safety. 
 
Sadly, and despite the fact that every major American political party should be lock-step on this issue, if an American citizen values border security (and the rule of law for that matter) he or she cannot stand with the Democrats despite the Schumer's fake assurances.  
 
 
 
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.
 
 
Once again, the Supreme Court is being tasked with tackling the most significant of societal issues: our freedom to worship. This time, the argument is embodied in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association.  Familiarly enough, the legal action pits the American people's abilities to have a longstanding religious symbol remain in the public square against those of secular activists to forcibly remove them.
 
The present controversy involves a cross that sits at the center of an intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland dating back to 1922 when local residents set out to build a structure honoring 49 local soldiers who died serving the United States in World War I.  The plan called for the construction of a 40-foot tall cross as homage to their fallen heroes.  
 
The Peace Cross, as it eventually came to be known, was completed in 1925, where it has stood as a symbol of the city's reverence and respect for those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our great country.  As the nation's history progressed and America suffered through other conflicts, the Cross served as a natural gathering place to honor the fallen heroes from World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Gulf Storm, among other conflicts.   
 
As things progressed, Bladensburg grew, and the property upon which the Peace Cross stood came to rest at the intersection of multiple growing thoroughfares.  Eventually, the state bought the land upon which the Cross stood in 1961, instantly transforming it into the public domain.  
 
Despite the change in the Peace Cross's status, there was still no objection to its continued presence; that is until the American Humanitarian Association came along.  
 
The Association is made up of a group of individuals who claim to be offended by the Cross's presence and want it removed.  Its argument is that the Cross represents an unconstitutional intermingling between church and state, since, according to the Association, its presence on public land represents the adoption or approval of religion by the government.  
 
In keeping with its strong objection to the Peace Cross, the Association, along with a group of local residents, brought an action against the Maryland National Park And Planning Commission to have the cross removed.  The Planning Commission fought back and was eventually granted summary judgment by the district court and told that the Cross could remain.  The case was subsequently appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which disagreed and ordered that the Cross be removed.  The case is now being argued before the Supreme Court. 
 
The Peace Cross case is a manifestation of the many problems of American jurisprudence in the way it handles cases of religious freedom.  The issue of public worship and respect for our religious freedoms is of elemental importance to all Americans.  Religious liberty is at the very root of the nation's foundation, and its scope and ramifications are fundamental to what it means to be human.  Without the direct relationship between our Creator and each one of us, there is no limit to the intrusion government can theoretically have upon the individual.  In fact, the only factor placing a limit upon government's authority over each person is the individual’s greater allegiance to God.  Absent this, government may logically run rampant over man.  
 
It is for this reason that the acknowledgment of man's divinity is so important in a democratic society as it is a constant reminder that both government and man are limited in their scope and power by a greater being, our Creator.  Conversely, removing such reminders, like the Cross, serve to diminish the role of religion and worship in people’s daily lives and makes it that much easier for government to intrude upon our freedoms.
 
Sadly, whereas symbols like the Peace Cross were rarely disturbed during the nineteenth century, beginning in the middle of the twentieth century, they were openly assaulted, not only culturally, but by jurists and advocates.
 
One of the defining moments of the assault came in a case calledLemon v. Kurtzman involving a state's ability to apply tax money in support of private schools, many of them religious.  Here, the Court prohibited such an association as an intrusion upon the wall of separation between church and state.  More importantly, the Court created a three-pronged test it would apply in order to determine whether an action or a law offended the Constitution. In short, the Court said that in order to have a law stand constitutional scrutiny related to religious freedom, the government would have to show three things: 1) a secular purpose; 2) that the law or act did not act principally to advance or inhibit religion; and 3) it did not create an “excessive entanglement with religion.”
 
Under these requirements, secularists have met with great success in attacking public expressions of worship, religious symbols, and prayer.  Using the Lemontest, secularists have been able to force courts to order the removal of crosses and Ten Commandment tablets from public lands, prevent prayer in schools, keep people from praying at commencement ceremonies, and erase Christmas symbols from municipal seasonal celebrations.  If your city no longer calls its December tree a Christmas tree, or now calls its Christmas parade a Holiday parade, there is a big chance it is due to the fear of the Lemon test.
 
But the Lemon test has not escaped criticism.  Many, including renowned law professors and jurists have argued that the test allows absurd outcomes and does not properly reflect the wishes of the American people.  Some have even called for the test to be displaced.  In fact, in a case questioning whether The Ten Commandments should be removed from the Texas Capitol, Justice Stephen Breyer opted not to use the test.  In upholding the ability of the tablets to remain, Breyer suggested an approach different from the one used in Lemon.  Breyer acknowledged that The Ten Commandments were openly religious, but despite that, he maintained that the tablets should remain because it was “part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage.”
 
The fact is that if Breyer had employed the Lemon test, his conclusion would likely have been opposite of what he felt was the more correct posture, and we would have witnessed yet another situation where religion and religious freedom would have been beaten down.  
 
Enter the 2018, conservative Supreme Court.  It is interesting that the Supreme Court decided to hear the Peace Cross case. Indeed, the lower court applied the Lemontest and arrived at the conventional position. The Supreme Court could have passed on this case and let it stand.  But it didn't.
 
The fact that the Court opted to hear this case is an opportunity for it to enter the arena of religious freedom and religious worship.  What the Court actually does with this case, of course, remains to be seen. In the end, it could use the Lemon test and provide further clarification on its application.  It could, on the other hand, do something truly innovative.  It could review the assault that has taken place upon religious freedom with the Lemon sword and take the future of the First Amendment in a more permissive direction. 
 
For our posterity's sake, let's hope that it does.
 
 
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's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.
Mark Twain
 
 
Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continued her meteoric rise to being the most uneducated person in Congress by displaying her ignorance regarding the birth of Christ and the circumstances leading to his family's displacement to Bethlehem.  
 
 
On Christmas Day, Cortez wrote in a tweet: 
 
Joy to the World!
 
Merry Christmas everyone - here’s to a holiday filled with happiness, family, and love for all people. (Including refugee babies in mangers + their parents.)
 
A cute little tweet, except it is substantively wrong. 
 
Unless Ocasio-Cortez knows of some modern-day refugees whose babies are in mangers, it is safe to conclude that her reference to "babies in mangers + their parents" refers to Baby Jesus and the Holy Family.  There's only one problem with the reference: when Baby Jesus was asleep in the manger in Bethlehem, neither his family nor he were refugees.  
 
According to biblical scripture, Mary and Joseph traveled from Nazareth, where they lived, to Bethlehem in Judea to comply with a mandatory census.  Being that Joseph's family was from Bethlehem, he needed to present himself there with his family, in order to be counted.  The purpose of the census was to determine the taxes he would need to pay the Romans, which had recently annexed Syria and the area known today as Israel.  Consequently, the Holy Family had to travel to Bethlehem, not because they were refugees, but because they needed to comply with an unjust mandate from their own government.  
 
The fact is that none of this is relevant to modern-day immigration policy, but it is emblematic of the lies the left delivers to the uneducated and to the malleable youth in an effort to fool them into accepting its meritless arguments.  
 
In this case, the hope is that if some parallel can be drawn between the plight of the modern non-refugee migrants such as the ones trying to illegally enter our country from Central America and the plight of the Holy Family, then sympathy can be developed for their cause and perhaps they may be accepted as viable additions to American society.  
 
The problem is that the facts of Jesus's birth don't fit the scenario the left is trying to fabricate.  Jesus was not an immigrant. His family members were non-foreign travelers seeking shelter in a city inside their own country to comply with oppressive tax laws.  Indeed, if Ocasio-Cortez made any point in referring to the Holy Family, it is that we should be leery of her taxation plans lest we end up in some Arizona desert reporting our presence to the IRS.
 
Some have said that we should cut the undereducated and overly naive congresswoman-elect some slack because she was only wrong in the timing of the Holy Family's plight, as they, including Jesus, were actually refugees in Egypt just after his birth.  
 
But this too is wrong.
 
Christian scripture has the Holy Family fleeing Bethlehem to Egypt after Joseph received a message from an angel, via a dream, that Herod was aware of the birth of the King of the Jews and was planning on slaughtering all Jewish firstborns.  As a result of this dream, Joseph hurriedly took his family to Egypt.  
 
But both Egypt and Syria (to which Bethlehem belonged) were part of the Roman Empire.  So, although it is true that the Holy Family sought safety in a distant land, in point of fact, the place where they came to rest was still part of their same country.  So even if one considers the Holy Family’s status at the time of its Flight to Egypt, they were not international refugees, but rather displaced residents.  
 
Adding to the inconsistency of the analogy, Ocasio-Cortez fails to recognize that the Holy Family was fleeing the jaws of an oppressive regime.  The Holy Family did not travel to Egypt because they were looking for a better way of life, or because they were trying to seek economic improvement like the Central American migrants are.  Rather, they fled because the Governor of Syria was bent on decapitating their first-born son; a situation that if it existed today, the United States would offer asylum.  In fact, if Ocasio-Cortez really wished for the United States to play a sympathetic role for the refugees in situations like the one of which she speaks, she would simply have to do nothing because, as they say, we already got that.
 
Once again, I personally don't think the policies of ancient Egypt, Syria, and of the Roman Empire matter one iota to modern immigration policy.  The importance of this story lies in the fact that it exemplifies the falsehoods promulgated to our nation's youth by the left for the purpose of spreading its dogma.  As a matter of fact, although Ocasio-Cortez, in this case, acted as a promoter of lies, she is both young and naive, and it is very possible that she is one of very young who have been bamboozled by the left into believing their agenda despite the facts.  
 
If so, let us hope that someday Ocasio-Cortez can figure it all out.  In the meantime, she can start by looking things up before she tweets, otherwise, she should just stay quiet or risk continuing to remove all doubt.  
 
 
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.
 
 
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.  
Benjamin Franklin
 
On December 10, 2018, the Department of Justice published its final rule regarding a bump stock ban in the United States.  (The rule banning bump stocks can be found at the Library section of The Federalist Pages as can the NRA's comments on the proposed rule.)  The DOJ arrived at this prohibition by holding that bump stocks are machine guns under the definitions of such weapons contained in 27 C.F.R. §§ 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11.  But even if DOJ were to have the authority to enact this regulation, the rule will serve only to further threaten its citizens with excessive regulatory restraints while not having a chance at achieving its stated purpose.
 
A constitutional government of enumerated powers ought not pass any law that falls outside the ambit of those authorities given to it nor those that do not serve to improve society.  As such, even if we decide that a government is authorized to pass a law, that authorization is nullified by the futility of the act.   Such is the case here.  
 
Congress is arguably entitled to pass a bump stock ban under the Second Amendment.
 
A valid argument can be made that Congress possesses the authority under the Constitution to pass a bump stock ban. Although some argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from banning bump stocks, in point of fact, a stronger argument holds that such a prohibition does not apply to firearm accessories, which bump stocks clearly are. 
 
In banning bump stocks, DOJ claims it is merely interpreting the definitions of "machine gun" contained in 27 C.F.R. §§ 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11.  Because it does not include a provision addressing parts of a machine gun, 27 C.F.R. § 447.11 could not be construed to include a bump stock, but 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 & 479.11 do.  They define a "machine gun" as "any weapon, which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.  The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under control of a person."  
 
Clearly, bump stocks may not be included within the first part of the definitions of "machine gun," but bump stocks are designed solely and exclusively for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun.  
 
Of course, there is an inconsistency in using the term "machine gun" within the definition of "machine gun," as doing so implies that what is being described is not a machine gun, but something else.  As we shall see, the flawed design of the "machine gun" definition brings up some legal difficulties.
 
Because it could reasonably be argued that Congress intended to include bump stocks within its definition of "machine gun," then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives would have the authority to regulate them, and DOJ would have the congressional authority to ban them.  
 
But oddly, by calling a bump stock a "machine gun," DOJ opens the door to Second Amendment jurisdiction. Governments have argued their authorities to regulate magazines, bullets, and other firearm attachments are not subject to Second Amendment restrictions because these are not "arms" as referenced in the Second Amendment, but rather accessories to arms. 
 
But in order to avail itself of the congressional authority to regulate bump stocks, DOJ has found it necessary to call bump stocks "machine guns," which are firearms, thus opening the door to Second Amendment challenges.  
 
Even if the judiciary takes up the charge of considering bump stocks machine guns in the full sense of the word, the question of whether it would find that regulating bump stocks runs afoul of the Second Amendment is a separate matter.  
 
Interestingly, it was not until the District of Columbia v. Heller case of 2008 that the Supreme Court defined those weapons protected by the Second Amendment.  Here, the Court ruled that it was weapons "in common use," that were protected.  Although little question exists that bump stocks are "in common use," the Court also reminded us that Congress could ban "dangerous and unusual weapons."  
 
Notice, the phrase is not dangerous orunusual, but dangerous and unusual, forcing the government to show that bump stocks are both if it were to defend its authority to prohibit them.  What the courts would rule if it would accept the invitation to consider bump stocks as actual firearms rather than accessories remains to be seen.
 
Countering this position is the lack of meaningful uses for bump stocks.  Bump stocks are used to increase the speed with which a weapon is fired, but most gun experts say that bump stocks are worthless items that only serve to diminish the accuracy of the weapon, and they are not advocated for use in hunting, or even as a valid enhancement to one's self-defense.  As such, it would be a very easy bar for the advocate to clear in arguing the superfluousness of such items and therefore, the lack of any meaningful intrusion on individual liberties in banning them. 
 
 
DOJ is not authorized to regulate bump stock as an accessory.
 
One could also argue that a bump stock is not a machine gun.  This is inherently true, of course, as bump stock could not, by itself, fire a bullet. If a bump stock is not a machine gun, then DOJ's reliance on 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 & 479.11 would get thrown at as nonsensical.  Frankly speaking, such would be the honest assessment and the most appropriate outcome of a true evaluation of the language of the governing statutes. However, it is equally clear that Congress, despite the grammatical impossibility of its definition, intended to include articles such as bump stocks in its regulatory scheme.  A court would likely stick to the intent of the statute rather than engage in a wordplay on such a politically charged issue.  Of course, should the court decide not to make an issue of the incongruity of the definition of "machine gun," it would immediately force itself to address the Second Amendment issues noted above; an inescapable Hobson's choice
 
Congress's ban on bump stocks prohibited by the Constitution.
 
There is yet another, more fundamental argument to be made against the validity of a congressional ban on bump stocks: it might not be allowed by the Constitution itself.  Till now, our constitutional considerations have centered on whether Congress may ban bump stocks under the Second Amendment.  Indeed, the greater question is whether Congress was ever given the authority to do so under the Constitution.  
 
The federal government is one of enumerated powers. If a power employed by Congress in passing a law is not contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; it does not possess the authority to enact it, and there is no provision in the Constitution allowing Congress to ban bump stocks.  Even the interstate commerce clause would not allow Congress to ban it.
 
That Congress was not given the authority in Article I to ban bump stocks is a well-founded contention as the Framers did not intend to create a federal government that could ban such items , leaving it to the states to do so instead.  To be sure, the Article I powers contained in the Constitution have been expanded by the interstate commerce clause, but even if the interstate commerce clause were to be employed in Congress's defense of regulating bump stocks, such powers would allow Congress to prohibit their interstate transport and sale, not their intrastate possession.
 
Sadly, though, the train allowing Congress to intrude in such intrastate activities has long since left the station and delivering such an argument before a federal magistrate would surely be met with  hostility.
 
 
Regulating bump stocks would likely not help.
 
Despite these valid arguments, many of which are addressed in DOJ's final rule announcement, the most effective argument against banning bump stock lies in its futility.  Recall that according to the legal theory leading to the creation of our government, the burden is upon the authorities to show that the rule or law passed is within the ambit of its authorities and purposeful in addressing a societal problem. 
 
Assuming appropriate authority, would banning bump stocks help solve a societal problem?  
 
The discussion about banning bump stocks was brought back to the forefront of the nation's political discussion after the horrible and tragic massacre of 2017 in Las Vegas.  There, bump stocks were used to convert semiautomatic weapons to automatics and spray over 1,100 rounds from the 43d floor of a hotel onto concertgoers assembled across the street.   Fifty-eight people were killed that night and another 851 were injured, 422 from gunshot wounds.
 
Immediately, gun control advocates, knowing that they would not easily be able to ban semiautomatic weapons, focused their attention on bump stocks.  Although bump stocks were not employed in the February 14, 2018, Parkland shooting, that massacre reinvigorated the call for a bump stock ban, one that President Donald J. Trump adopted.  By March 2018, DOJ had published its proposed rule.
 
But banning bump stocks will not have any effect on preventing or lessening these massacres.  
 
First, massacres can and often do take place without the use of semiautomatic weapon converters.  Not only did the Parkland shooter not employ bump stocks, but also the later massacre in a California nightclub where 13 were killed was carried out with great effectiveness with a handheld semiautomatic.  Similarly, the Pulse Club shooting in Orlando that killed 49 people did not include bump stocks.
 
Federal authorities do not know how many bump stocks exist in the United States although DOJ estimates that there are anywhere between 280,000 and 520,000 in circulation.  There is no record of who owns these accessories making it impossible for DOJ to chase them down.  Additionally, the rule relies primarily on the voluntary destruction of bump stocks to remove them from circulation.  Here, we can learn from the experiences of the few states that have passed bump stock bans. In New Jersey, its bump stock return program has produced exactly zero bump stocks to authorities. And in Massachusetts, its program has delivered three. 
 
Moreover, a semiautomatic rifle can be converted to fire automatically by using as many methods as imaginative minds can conjure making conversion a relatively simple affair, bump stock or not.  
 
Even Jeremy Stein, the President of Connecticut Against Gun Violence and coauthor of the Connecticut bump stock bill called the legislation ineffective at solving all gun violence problems and said the effort at banning bump stocks was "symbolic."  In addition, The Wall Street Journal said enforcement would be "a challenge."
 
So the strongest argument in favor of passing anti-bump stock legislation is the invalid symbolism contention and the argument against it is the indisputable futility charge.  
 
But the rule gets enacted anyway, which brings us to the heart of the issue.  Government should not be engaged in the practice of knowingly passing ineffective legislation, and we the people should not be allowing it to do so.  
 
Yet, they do; and we do.  And therein lies the crux of our problem.
 
 
 
 
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.
 
In a land dominated by the left and its take on world events, Fox News may have been the lone bastion of conservatism and conservative reporting.  It has traditionally been the place where right-of-center Americans go to seek truth devoid of the biased slant from socialists and anti-Trump activists.  But now, it seems, Fox News has not been living up to its charter.
 
Unquestionably what we have in the United States is not a "free and unencumbered" press.  Yes, the First Amendment does protect the press from governmental interference, but "free and unencumbered" requires much more than the absence of governmental interference.  For the press to be truly "free and unencumbered," it must also devoid of private sector pressures slanting its reporting in one direction or another. 
 
CNN has become a trumpet for anti-Trumpists. MSNBC will not deliver a story without availing itself of the opportunity to slam conservatives and defend the validity of the liberal agenda.  The New York Times' reporting pieces read more like opinions than news reports, and The Washington Post will rarely acknowledge the validity of conservative pundits and newsmakers.
 
To be clear, reporting is not opining. Journalism requires much more than news analysis.  To truly engage in journalism, an outlet must have a fleet of reporters ready to engage newsmakers.  They need to stand at the ready to go on location and sleuth out the stories of importance to their readership.  It is an endeavor requiring money and assets, and one that cannot be achieved by bloggers, pundits, and opiners.  
 
Virtually every journalistic organization in the United States in a position to engage in this level of intense journalistic scrutiny is left of center. Until recently, the only notable exception has been Fox News.
 
Since Roger Ailes' departure and passing, Fox News' conservative slant has waned.  In recent years, Shepard Smith has been open about his less than conservative slant.  Neil Cavuto has been hostile to President Trump and his agenda, and the evolution of Judge Napolitano's legal views from staunch conservative arbiter and strict constitutionalist to slanted advocate has been noticeable.  
 
But an increasingly leftist slant is not the greatest issue affecting Fox News.  The bigger problem is its lack of sophistication in reporting.  Almost by definition, a televised news report will be more superficial than its written companion.  The time limitations imposed upon any televised news article imparts significant challenges to the delivery of in-depth analysis or reports.  For that, a news journal program where a story is thoroughly developed is required.  No such program exists on Fox.  
 
What's more, the Fox News lineup has pretty much devolved into a Fox and Friends variety show in the morning followed by a series of fight sessions loosely calling themselves "debates."  With the notable exception of Chris Wallace, who is not consistently conservative, but appears to try to deliver objective interviews from his subjects and the occasional and invaluable appearances of Britt Hume, there is no grounded, objective voice of Fox.  The Five offers no substantive insight in its entertainment-based discussions, and the All-Star Panel on Special Report with Bret Baier is a shell of itself since the sad and premature loss of Charles Krauthammer and the disappearances of Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes.  
 
But despite the limitations in televised reporting, twenty-first-century journalism can make up for them by supplementing the inherent shortcomings of its televised programming with a strong online presence.  Fox News fails here as well, and it's not merely because of the unacceptably high incidence of grammatical errors.  Over the past two years, the website has taken on an increasingly tabloid feel.  For example, on Saturday morning, the two top stories were (appropriately) dealt with the government shutdown and Justice Ginsburg's lung cancer.  But these were immediately followed by a slew of stupid and worthless stories regarding the colors of the interior of the house in Home Alone, Arian Grande's lampshading fashions, crazy campus breakdowns, an adopted pastor embracing and forgiving his biological father, and Sandra Bullock's revelation of her crush on Keanu Reeves while filming Speed.
 
Undoubtedly, conservatives are definitely engaged in an existential fight for their country's future.  Inherent to that battle is the thoughtful delivery of views and developments supportive of conservative philosophies and viewpoints.  Sadly, Fox News has abandoned that charge.  
 
Either Fox News retakes its position as the leader in conservative news, or someone else will need to carry the baton.
 
 
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.
 
Yesterday, quite unexpectedly, we learned of President Trump's plan to have American forces leave Syria immediately.  In a video tweet published Wednesday, the President declared, "We have won against ISIS," and that it was consequently time to bring the troops home.
 
Sadly, the President is wrong in pulling our troops out of Syria.
 
Unquestionably, we all want our troops home.  None of us wants even one American to die while unnecessarily fighting for a goal with no firm endpoint.  And of course, no one wants our military engaged in foreign battles a moment longer than necessary.  But the claim that we have defeated ISIS, although generally true, may not be completely accurate.  And even more importantly, the United States still has multiple, bona-fide, national security interests in the region.  
 
ISIS is one of the great evils of the twenty-first century.  Their intolerant religious views coupled with their ruthless pursuit and punishment of all not subscribing to there radical Islamic tendencies crosses the threshold from fervent belief to unabashed power grab with no signs of self-restraint. Regardless of the faith, there is no defense of the mass decapitation, stoning, and burning of others, and there is equally no excuse for the sequestration of women and their mass rape. But these are mere standard operating techniques for ISIS and its followers.
 
The United States was correct in entering the theater for the purpose of destroying these inhumane elements.  Moreover, historical hindsight now allows us to understand that a large factor in ISIS's ability to flourish was the Obama Administration's passive policies of leading from behind and not rocking the boat. From the void the United States left as it retreated away from the Middle East came the opportunity for mayhem and evil to spread, and ISIS mercilessly capitalized on it. 
 
Through the efforts of our brave men and women, ISIS has been beaten back to a small and remote area of Syria where its members live holed up in caves and fearing for their lives.  By most accounts, remaining ISIS forces number between 2,000 and 15,000 members and are devoid of a valid organizational structure.  
 
But exist they do, and these fanatics would like nothing more than the opportunity to spread their influence and reorganize. Let us remember, this is a perpetual battle for ISIS; one of apocalyptic proportions and without rules of engagement. They will never go away.
 
Then, there are the regional issues.  Iran, the greatest fomenter of terrorism in the world has only one goal in mind; the eradication of the State of Israel.  For them, the end game is to drive every Israeli into the Mediterranean Sea and see them drown.  Like ISIS, their vision is apocalyptic in nature and aspirational.  
 
Crucial to Iran's plan is the establishment of a corridor of influence spanning from its western border to the Mediterranean Sea. Such a corridor would include deployed elements in Iran, Jordan, and yes, Syria.  So important is Syria to the successful establishment of a corridor, that Iran has deployed personnel and rockets in coordination with the Syrian regime under Bashar al-Assad.  
 
Russia's interest in the area is different.  For Russia, maintaining the Assad regime, even if it is in coordination with Iran means the expansion of Russian influence at the expense of the United States.  For Russia, controlling Syria equals gaining a foothold in a region with a massive influence on the world's oil reserves and markets.  It also means pushing the United States out of a geopolitical region where American influence is vital.  
 
Viewed in its totality, America's continued presence in Syria is crucial to keeping Iran from forwarding its abilities to foment terrorism, keeping Soviet influence at bay, checking the evils of the Assad regime, protecting Israel, and preventing the resurgence of ISIS. In short, the stakes here are, quite frankly, way too high for the United States to abandon them at this time. 
 
That our country would love to have their young men and women home, not just for Christmas, but permanently, goes without saying.  That our country has seen involvement in way too many unnecessary engagements also stands without dispute as does the fact that American foreign policy and its attempts at regime change is mired with wrong decisions.  But none of these can discount the dire consequences of our troops abandoning Syria.  It is unfortunate that our country does not have a viable exit option at this time in Syria, and despite our intense desire for engaging in interventions with clearly defined endpoints, goals, and exit strategies, Syria and the Middle East is not one of those situations.  
 
For all these reasons, our absence in Syria will come at an unacceptable price, one that the President must consider despite his desire to get our troops out.  
 
In short, President Trump needs to rethink his position in Syria and engage in patient perseverance instead of an impulsive and ill-advised retreat.
 
 
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.
 
 
When I was in sixth grade, I was chosen to be the defense attorney for a classmate.  Evelyn was accused of passing an answer to a test question to a fellow student during an exam.  She was accused of cheating.  
 
Evelyn was a great student, and she had never been accused of cheating before, but her accuser was none other than the principal of the school, Dr. Gil Beltrán.
 
As it were, Dr. Beltrán had seen Evelyn pass the note to her friend when, while performing his routine rounds, he glanced through one of the door windows behind the class and saw the allegedly illegal act take place.  Upon seeing the exchange of information, Dr. Beltrán opened the back door of the class, signaled to the receiving student to hand over whatever paper Evelyn had just handed him, and opened it.  
 
You could hear a pin drop as Dr. Beltrán stared down at Evelyn and signaled for her to go to his office.  
 
Evelyn cried for hours after that prompting the rest of us to protest about the unfairness of the treatment to which Evelyn was being subjected.  
 
At some point, and I am foggy on the details, Dr. Beltrán offered our class a compromise.  We would have a trial, one with witnesses, lawyers, and a judge; the whole deal.  I think Dr. Beltrán (may he rest in peace) concluded this would be a great opportunity for us kids to engage in experiential learning.  Of course, Evelyn was the defendant, and I was chosen by the principal himself to be her attorney.  And to serve as my co-counsel, the principal chose Dagoberto, my best friend in the world.  
 
But the principal also picked himself to serve as the judge, and the trial would take place in his office; in a week.
 
Dago and I zealously worked to get Evelyn off. First, we learned that what Evelyn had handed to her friend, was not an answer to the test, but a question about what they were going to do after school.  
 
Unfortunately, the principal, Dr. Beltrán, had since thrown away the piece of paper, but we had both the defendant and the recipient attest that the note was not an answer to the test, but a question about after-school plans.  
 
And in a great development for the defense, we were also able to procure the teacher as a witness who was willing to testify that not only did she not see Evelyn pass any piece of paper that day, but that Evelyn was a young lady of impeccable character and would be the last student the teacher would have expected to engage in cheating.  
 
Overall, Dago and I were feeling pretty good about our case.  At best, we might be able to get Evelyn off altogether.  At worst, she would be found guilty of a lesser offense such as disruptive class behavior.  But at least we would save her from a cheating conviction; a felony offense by grade-school standards.  
 
Despite our success at building the case, I recall the many hours Dago and I spent in our late-night, land-line conversations preoccupied with one little point: the accuser was also the judge.  
 
I remember Dago and I worry that we would not be able to bring Dr. Beltrán to the stand because a) he was the principal; and b) he was the judge.  
 
How do you get the judge to serve as a witness? Dago and I asked ourselves.
 
For the answer to this question, Dago and I would need a classmate's parent who was also an attorney!  But try as we did, we couldn't find one.  
 
Our school, La Lúz School, was a small private, Cuban immigrant school where the Cuban National Anthem was played immediately following the American National Anthem every morning while we stood in ranks with our hands on our hearts and where the Cuban flag proudly waived next to the Stars and Stripes.  
 
At that time, most Cubans had not had the time in country to become members of the learned professions.
 
So, into trial at the principal's office we went with the whole class as our audience.  
 
I'll never forget it!  I thought our team performed marvelously.  We laid out the facts of the case by calling our witnesses to the stand and having each tell his or her story.  We were able to ascertain that the note was not an answer to a test question, that Evelyn had impeccable character, and that no one, except the accuser, ever saw her even pass the paper; a paper no one could produce!
 
Even still, we lost the case.
 
Why? Because the judge, who was also the accuser and who was not called to the stand said he knew what he saw, and that Evelyn was guilty.  
 
I can still remember Evelyn tearfully thanking me for helping, but I also remember my disappointment at not being able to get her off.  
 
It wouldn't be until years later, during a high school civics class, that I learned that the judge could not be a witness or a party to the case!!
 
OMG!!! HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO STUPID??!!!
 
I needed to move that the judge recuse himself because he was the witness AND the accuser!
 
To this day, I still beat myself up about that one, my only criminal defense case.
 
So first, my fondest apologies to Evelyn, if she should read this.  In my ignorance, I let you down.  I will never let that happen again.
 
Second, to the reason I'm sharing this story with you. Because it was the first thing that came to mind when I heard of the shenanigans that took place yesterday at General Michael Flynn's Sentencing Hearing.
 
Let me be clear.  I believe that General Flynn lied to the FBI and in so doing broke the law.  I also believe he was set up to lie by a manipulative, vindictive, and agenda-driven FBI bent on entrapping the General.  What's more, I believe the investigators in this case were the primary reason General Flynn was without an attorney at their meeting of January 24, 2017, and to allow the FBI to get away with that level of disrespect to a defendant's rights is repulsive.  
 
But yesterday, a new offense arose. Yesterday, we learned for the first time, that Judge Emmet Sullivan, the judge assigned to the Flynn case, is horribly and irreparably biased against Flynn, and we know this from the judge's very words.
 
During the hearing, Judge Sullivan is quoted as saying to General Flynn, "I am not hiding my disgust, my disdain for your criminal offense."  At one point, the judge went on to state that General Flynn, a 33 year Army veteran of war and peace, had betrayed his country and asked whether General Flynn could be accused of treason.
 
TREASON!!!
 
A crime so egregious, so vile, and so disgusting to the Framers that it stands as the only one mentioned by name in the Constitution of the United States and punishable by hanging!!  The same crime for which Jane Fonda was not accused when she pranced around in her short shorts in front of the Viet Cong.  
 
This is what Judge Sullivan thinks of General Flynn!  I notice that Judge Sullivan never served in our nation's military. Never saw bullets flying nearby while wearing a helmet and shrapnel vest, and never spent months overseas away from his family not knowing if he would ever get back home because he might say hello to an enemy bullet first.  
 
With all due respect to the judge, I will put one year of General Flynn's service to this great country against the judge's whole career any day and easily come out winning.  
 
Admittedly, the judge corrected himself and apologized for his remarks, to which I will respond in kind.  I apologize for those last two paragraphs and strike them from the record.  
 
But regardless of how I feel about this case, we still have a very significant problem. We still have a judge who is disgusted by the defendant and holds disdain for him to the point where he would consider employing the word treason around this fallen American hero.  
 
It's like having Dr. Belrtrán try a case all over again, except this time, although I am not General Flynn's attorney, I know better.  
 
Judge Sullivan recuse yourself from this case!
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves 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.
 
In 2012, the Supreme Court delivered one of its most vexing opinions in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.  The case, challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, is still the most highly discussed and scrutinized Supreme Court case of the twenty-first century.  Its impact upon the nation is massive because it took an unconstitutional act on the part of Congress and ruled it constitutional.  And now, the renewed question of the Affordable Care Act's constitutionality is making its way up through the judiciary in Texas v. California, a case available for your review in the Library. And once again, the answer is that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.
 
The foundation for the Affordable Care Act is the creation of a mandatory healthcare market for health insurance in which all must participate.  The marketplace includes a set of product options, defined by the government, one of which must be purchased by each individual.  If an individual fails to purchase a certain product, then he or she must pay a tax.  Incidentally, the individual may not escape the tax by purchasing a similar product that does not meet the criteria laid out by the government.  
 
Any unbiased observer with a basic understanding of constitutional law would agree that Congress, a body of certain, specific and enumerated powers, was never given the authority to force the public into buying a product it does not wish to buy.  The Constitution does not say, for example, "Congress shall have the power to design, implement, and enforce participation in a health care system." 
 
Some argue that the Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress such authority.  But in order to do so, the Constitution would have to give Congress the authority to force nonparticipants' participation in the marketplace against their will, something the ICC still does not allow Congress to do.
 
So how did the Affordable Care Act pass constitutional muster?  Quite simply, in NFIB, Chief Justice John Roberts said the authority lay in Congress's taxation powers.  To Roberts, the Act was not forcing people's participation in the marketplace with a penalty for those failing to participate.  Rather, the Act was implementing a taxation scheme that would tax those who voluntarily chose not to be insured.  The interpretation was a novel one indeed and allowed a law that would have never been conceived by the Framers as falling within the enumerated powers to stand.  
 
Then, in 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act where it removed the penalty, or tax, from the Affordable Care Act. The result is a law that sets up a marketplace of health insurance products without its associated taxation or penalty components.  After the TCJA, all of the mandates remain in the Affordable Care Act, but gone is any associated taxation overlay.   Thus, now we have an Act, passed by Congress, that purely forces an individual's participation in a marketplace when there is no nexus with taxation policy.  
 
Constitutionally, this new arrangement forces the courts to answer the question of the law's constitutionality based solely on the Congress's Interstate Commerce Clause authority.  In the case of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the answer is that Congress does not possess such authority under the Constitution and that the Interstate Commerce Clause will not allow it to claim it.  
 
Admittedly, the question before the courts is an awkward one because now they are forced to decide whether a law the Supreme Court had previously ruled constitutional is still so when a part of it is removed. The reason for this awkwardness is that despite Chief Justice Roberts' inventions, the Affordable Care Act was never constitutional.  The Affordable Care Act was never a tax; it was a healthcare scheme divined by Congress into which people were forced to participate through the power of a penalty.
 
Texas v. California will absolutely be sent up to the circuit courts and likely appear at the doorstep of the Supreme Court.  Let us hope this time, Chief Justice Roberts gets it right.  
 
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.
 
All too predictably, The New York Times is hyperbolically criticizing President Donald Trump for saying that he would review the case of Major Mathew L. Golsteyn, a Green Beret accused of killing an Afghan man in 2010.  Consumed with its biased vitriol, The New York Timescalled the President "impulsive" and accused him of exercising "undue command influence."  But in point of fact, Golsteyn's case is exactly the situation for which the presidential pardon must be considered. 
 
By all accounts, Golsteyn was serving in Afghanistan in 2010.  His service took him to the battle for Marja in which more than 15,000 coalition troops fought.  Dozens of Americans were killed during that battle including two members of the Green Beret who were working with Golsteyn; the victims of an Afghan roadside bomb.  
 
While clearing homes around Marja, Golsteyn and his team captured a suspected Taliban bomb maker.  To identify the prisoner, he was taken to an Afghan tribal leader secretly working for the United States.  The tribal leader identified the man as a member of the Taliban and expressed his fear of being killed by them if the suspected bomb maker ever revealed the tribal leader's cooperation with the Americans.  
 
After completing their investigation of the bomb maker's identity, the American forces concluded they were not authorized to kill this particular individual.  As best as can be told, the bomb maker was to be released.
 
Afraid of the suspected bomb maker's ability to kill more Americans after his release and of identifying the local informant, Golsteyn and another soldier took the Afghan bomb maker off base and killed him seemingly without authorization to do so.  
 
Golsteyn's involvement in the man's murder first came to light when he interviewed for a job at the CIA.  As part of his application, he was asked to identify any illegal acts or indiscretions in which he may have participated.  His confession led to an investigation resulting in the withholding of Golsteyn's employment with the CIA, but without charges being brought against him.
 
Golsteyn's story may well have ended here if it weren't for a 2016 interview with Bret Baier where he admitted to having killed the suspected Afghan bomb maker on television.  His admission led to the reopening of the case and with the presentation of formal charges against him for first-degree murder.  
 
This case brings up an interesting set of moral questions.  First, we are once again reminded that war sucks, with many being placed in situations they would never encounter under any other circumstances.  
 
Second, it is understandable for Golsteyn to conclude that he had to kill the bomb maker.  If he let him go, the man was likely to continue his task of creating explosives aimed at killing American soldiers, and in that environment, he would have likely succeeded.  As such, more Americans would have never come home.  More families would have been left without their dads and husbands, and more parents would have never seen their kids again.   
 
Additionally, the Afghan bomb maker now knew the identity of an American informant in Afghanistan.  He would have, most assuredly, turned the informant  over to the Taliban and had him killed.
 
Unquestionably, if this bomb maker were indefinitely detained or killed, the world would be that much safer and suffering would have been that much less.
 
But then there's the rule of law, an article above which none of us can be placed.  Golsteyn was given specific orders.  He is part of the greatest fighting force in the world, a fighting force whose greatness proceeds from its soldiers' discipline, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for the chain of command.  It is not up to Golsteyn to decide who lives and who dies.  No man should have that kind of unfettered authority. He is a soldier, and his job is to follow orders, to carry out his mission faithfully, and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and by extension, its laws.  
 
With the information given, Golsteyn broke the law and then made the unforced error of brazenly bringing attention to that fact through a national television broadcast.  Unquestionably, there is much more evidence to be uncovered, some of it potentially exculpatory, but if the facts stand as they are, if there is nothing more of substance to consider, Golsteyn's stood outside of the boundaries of the law, and he must be held to account.  
 
But there are times when the law is too harsh; times when society's punishment is either illogical or inappropriate for the circumstances.  Under these conditions, an escape clause must be configured.  
 
Alexander Hamilton said it best, as he so often does, in The Federalist Number 74, "The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel."
 
And such is the case with Golsteyn.
 
It frequently astounds me how often the writers and editors of The New York Times display their ignorance of the Constitution and the manner in which it is supposed to function.  Here we have yet another example. The New York Times worries about the perception of the American justice system in the eyes of Afghans.  It ruminates over the effects a presidential comment about consideringan action and whether such consideration will impede the wheels of justice.  
 
Once again, The New York Times is off in its assessment.  
 
Let the wheels turn as they may.  Let the Army investigate the case, and let it, if it finds probable cause to do so, bring charges against our heroic Major Golsteyn.  And let the President, as he is charged to do under the Constitution consider whether the outcome in this case is one where justice wears a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.  And if so, let the President access his exception for this man's unfortunate guilt and pardon Major Mathew Golsteyn, just as the Framers would have intended. 
 
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.

Every once in a while, you come across a set of circumstances that brings you great sadness about our country's state of affairs. (Yes, it may be happening more frequently.)  The events surrounding the prosecution of General Michael Flynn and his treatment by the FBI and Special Counselor Robert Mueller is such a situation.
 
By now, most of you are aware of the circumstances behind General Flynn's accusations, but they nevertheless deserve elucidation.  First, General Michael Flynn is a 33-year veteran of the United States Army with an impeccable history of patriotic service to his country.  His service specialized on counter-intelligence, and he is likely responsible for the identification, capture, and destruction of more anti-American terrorists than anyone in the history of the United States.
 
On January 20, 2017, General Flynn assumed the office of National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, President Donald J. Trump.  Just prior to taking on that role, on December 29, 2016, General Flynn had contact with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak.  The details of this contact are somewhat sketchy, but suffice it to say that the contact took place.  
 
During this time, the Obama Administration, still reeling from the Democrats' unexpected loss to Donald Trump in the presidential elections was bent on blaming Russian interference for the defeat of the anointed Democrat darling, Hillary Clinton.  The shock associated with the defeat led to a zealous effort to identify and understand the extent and machinations of this interference and to discover whether the Trump campaign was in any way involved.  
 
The agency tasked with the investigation of potential Russian meddling was the Federal Bureau of Investigation headed at the time by James Comey.  The FBI was very interested in the specifics behind the interactions between General Flynn and the Russian Ambassador because it wanted to know whether there was any evidence of promised benefits to the Russians under the new administration in exchange for Russian assistance in tilting the election in Trump's favor. To be clear, the mere fact that the Russian Ambassador had made contact with General Flynn was not illegal.  
 
For the sake of our discussion, I am going to assume that the Special Counsel Robert Mueller's version of the details regarding the contact between these two men is correct.  I am going to grant the Mueller team's assertion that General Flynn had not forgotten about the contact he had with the Kislyak.  I am going to assume, as Mueller reports, that by the time the FBI agents contacted him, Flynn was already relating a false narrative regarding his conversation with the Ambassador.  I am also going to assume that, as Mueller says, Flynn was given more than ample opportunities to correct the falsehoods he delivered to the inquiring agents on January 24, 2017.   I am also going to acknowledge, for the sake of argument, that Flynn was not coerced into admitting that he had lied when he struck a plea deal with the FBI and that he was actually being accurate when he admitted his illegality to them.
 
But even if those assertions are true, Judge Emmet Sullivan, the judge responsible for sentencing General Flynn on Tuesday and the one who has asked to review any exculpatory evidence in the case, must still throw out the case against General Flynn.
 
The principal question is whether the FBI induced General Flynn into lying during its interview of January 24, 2017.  More directly, did the FBI conduct its interview in such a manner as to induce the general to lie.  After reviewing the Mueller memo to the court, my conclusion is that it absolutely, positively did.  
 
In arriving at this conclusion, I first take note that prosecutorial entrapment is absolutely illegal and fatal to the prosecution of a suspect.  Entrapment, the act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit, is a vile and vicious technique that if allowed to run unabated represents a fundamental threat to our liberties and to our abilities to live our lives in peace and free of government persecution.  
 
Entrapment cannot be tolerated.  
 
Consequently, if the FBI induced the general into committing the crime of lying to the FBI, it would nullify its prosecution of him and force the case to be dismissed. 
 
According to the memo produced by Robert Mueller in defense of his prosecution of Flynn, Mueller admits that the FBI knew prior to its interview that Flynn had made contact with Ambassador Kislyak on December 29, 2016, "the same day the US announced sanctions against Russia for its interference with the 2016 elections. "  Moreover, Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, the man who contacted Flynn about a potential meeting with FBI investigators, was of the belief that Flynn had already lied to others regarding his contacts with the ambassador and that he was already "committed to that false story."  Even so, those deceitful acts of delivering a false narrative on the part of Flynn, whether excusable or not, were not illegal.  Despite this, McCabe, in coordination with James Comey made the decision to bypass protocol in seeking the interview with Flynn in the hopes that he would repeat those lies to investigators.  In other words, McCabe and Comey built a trap for Flynn.  
 
Additionally, we know from comments made by Comey that when McCabe set up the interview with Flynn, he knowingly bypassed protocol.  We also know that Flynn inquired as to whether he should have his attorney present and was dissuaded from doing so by McCabe. 
 
More egregiously, McCabe and Comey purposely decided not to warn Flynn that it was illegal to lie to the FBI.  This is an important detail because it is distinguishable from the mere omission of the information, which is how the media generally reports this fact.  Instead, according to Mueller's memo to the court, McCabe and Comey made the purposeful decision to conceal the subject's legal peril.  The reasons for this purposeful omission was to fool Flynn into being "relaxed," and because "they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the report."  The implications of this admission are fatal to Flynn's successful prosecution since they acknowledge that if the FBI had properly performed its job, Mueller would not have committed the crime of lying to them.  Once again, the FBI investigators admit to having entrapped Mueller. 
 
As the Mueller memo states, the overall effect of the FBI's efforts was to make Flynn believe that he was dealing with allies in an investigation, not that he was the subject of one.  
 
With these admissions, Mueller has essentially painted a picture whereby the FBI created an environment by which Flynn would be induced into committing a crime he would not otherwise have committed; the very definition of entrapment.  
 
With this information, it is very likely that, should this have gone to trial, it would have been thrown out because of entrapment of the defendant and due to the FBI's advice to Flynn against obtaining legal counsel.  Instead, the case was pleaded out by a defendant who was on the verge of bankruptcy from the mammoth legal defense bills he had incurred and whose son was being threatened with prosecution should he not submit to the FBI's demands.
 
In conclusion, this story reveals one of the grossest displays of reckless disregard for prosecutorial restraint and for the rights of the defendant imaginable.  With any luck, Judge Sullivan will see the brazen unprofessionalism displayed by sleazes McCabe, Comey, and Mueller and bring some semblance of justice to the negatively impacted life of a man who is nothing short of a great American hero.
 
 
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.
 
This week, from a published plea deal with prosecutors from the Southern District of New York (SDNY), we learned that American Media, Inc. (AMI), the National Enquirer's parent company, admitted to "making a contribution and expenditure. . . to the campaign of a candidate for President of the United States."  In exchange for this admission, the SDNY agreed not to prosecute AMI for any crimes related to this contribution with the exception of any criminal tax violations that may have arisen.  Although the admission allows AMI to avoid prosecution for its campaign contribution, a neutral review of the facts laid out in the addendum to the September 30th plea deal calls to question whether a contribution to any campaign even occurred. 
 
According to the plea deal arrangement published by SDNY, AMI made a contribution to the Trump campaign when it paid $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal in order to procure the rights to her story regarding her extra-marital affair with Donald Trump.  Prosecutors claim that the money paid to McDougal by AMI represented a campaign contribution because it was made with the intent of influencing the results of the election and in coordination with Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and unnamed "members or agents of the Trump campaign."
 
The payment was allegedly made to McDougal after AMI CEO David Pecker received assurances from Cohen that he would reimburse Pecker for the transaction, and after Cohen created a shell corporation housing the money to be used to reimburse Pecker and AMI. However, despite the execution of the deal between McDougal and AMI, Pecker later called Cohen to tell him "that the deal was off and that Cohen should tear up the assignment agreement."  The addendum does not explain why Pecker called off the deal with Cohen, but it does say that AMI subsequently published articles and pictures of McDougal on many of its magazines "to keep the model from commenting publicly about her story and her agreement with AMI." Consequently, neither Cohen, Trump, nor the Trump campaign ever gave the money to AMI (the parent company of the National Enquirer).
 
Under these circumstances it is debatable whether the actions by Pecker were contributions to the Trump campaign or a business transaction voluntarily undertaken by Pecker and independent of any political campaign.  Moreover, even if there was a deal with Cohen, pending the identification of the "members and agents of the campaign" and their participation in the transaction, it appears Cohen was acting as Trump's personal attorney and not as an agent of the campaign.  
 
And finally, being that AMI never consummated the deal with Cohen, doesn't that obviate whatever association AMI may have had with Cohen and therefore the campaign?  Regardless, it certainly seems unpalatable that a campaign finance statute would be written so broadly as to capture any activity that any person undertook in support of a candidate in the absence of any participation on the part of the campaign.  Such a statute would be impossible to enforce and an open affront to the protections enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.
 
So if AMI never consummated a deal with Cohen or the Trump campaign, was it really a campaign contribution?  And if it was not, then why would AMI make a deal with prosecutors in exchange for immunity? 
 
The answer is simple: economic and legal expediency.  
 
Pecker knows that a legal defense of this matter would likely run in the scores of thousands of dollars regardless of whether or not he prevails.  Additionally, although this transaction may be defendable, there's no telling what other things prosecutors may turn up about AMI independent of the Trump dealings that may place it in real legal turmoil.  So in the end, it pays for AMI, which has no unbreakable interest in Trump, to just agree to the deal and tell prosecutors whatever they know.  After all, the admission of an illegal campaign contribution on the part of the National Enquirerwill neither hurt its public standing nor its sales. AMI gets its immunity, and the prosecutors get a cooperative witness with which to pursue its case against the President.  And the world moves on.
 
Indeed, if the AMI matter had taken place in isolation there would be little impetus for a story here.  But consider the events involving Jerome Corsi.  
 
Mr. Corsi is a journalist and an author notable for his book Obama Nation.  Corsi was approached by Special Counsel Bob Mueller regarding his alleged interactions with Candidate Trump Adviser Roger Stone and Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange.  These contacts resulted from Corsi's investigations of the Wikileaks July 22, 2016, publication of Hillary Clinton's emails where he noted the absence of a batch of emails between Clinton and her former campaign manager, John Podesta.  According to the later-filedcomplaint by Corsi's lawyers, that observation led Corsi to contact Assange regarding Assange's possible possession of the Podesta emails and their potential publication.  
 
As a result of this contact, Mueller suspected Corsi of possibly aiding Russia in colluding with the Trump campaign through Assange.  According to Corsi's complaint, Mueller and his team then attempted to coerce Corsi into admitting that he was colluding with the Russians on behalf of Candidate Trump. In this case, however, Corsi refused to admit engaging in activity in which he was not involved and fought back by filing a lawsuit against Mueller.  
 
But the Corsi and AMI affairs are not the only two examples of potential prosecutorial coercion in the Trump affair.  General Michael Flynn is a soldier and public servant with an impeccable reputation dating back over thirty years.  In 2017, Flynn served as President Trump's first National Security Advisor.  In December 2016, Flynn had two conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. On January 24, 2017, four days into his tenure as NSA, FBI agents approached Flynn regarding those contacts.  Among the FBI agents conducting the interview was Peter Strzock, the same agent who was later disgraced because of personal texts where he openly expressed his intense bias against President Donald Trump. 
 
Apparently, during that interview, General Flynn was asked whether he had ever spoken to Kislyak.  Flynn denied such a conversation.  When confronted about this discrepancy, Flynn said that he did not initially recall the contacts.  And in point of fact, Flynn had reason to not be as defensive and careful as he would have been had he known the prosecutorial peril under which he had been placed.  First, even though the law specifically prohibits knowingly and willfully lying to the FBI, Flynn was never placed under oath nor told that anything he said could and would be held against him; a basic tenet of prosecutorial conduct and fair play.  Second, when Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe approached Flynn via a telephone conversation, he billedthe interview as being for the purpose of pursuing information regarding media coverage of the leaked memos.  Even more damning was McCabe's reassurances to Flynn that the latter did not need his attorney to be present.  This latter fact is perhaps the most implicative of a concerted entrapment on the part of the FBI even before one considers that then FBI Director James Comey recently observed that that he knowingly broke protocol in this case because the Trump administration was a mere three days into its tenure and "disorganized."
 
Based on these coercive and unethical, and likely unconstitutional circumstances, Flynn would be threatened with prosecution unless he admitted to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak and cooperated with the Mueller investigation of President Trump.  After losing his house to the overwhelming legal bills and seeing his son similarly threatened by prosecutors, Flynn acquiesced.  The case is presently under judicial review for possible prosecutorial malfeasance.  A decision on this matter is expected this Tuesday as part of Flynn's sentencing hearing.
 
Then there's President Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, admittedly a category onto himself.  Mr. Cohen was recently sentenced to three years imprisonment on charges of campaign finance violations stemming from payments he made to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking regarding her affair with Trump prior to his becoming President.  Once again, the legal premise under which prosecutors sought to indict Cohen was controversial.  There is significant disagreement over whether Cohen was engaging in campaign activities when he made the arrangements with Stormy Daniels.  His actions, although shady, could have reasonably been found to have taken place on behalf of Donald J. Trump's personal capacity and outside the purview of Trump's presidential campaign.  But once again coercive prosecutorial activities come into play, and Cohen worked out a deal so to not have to defend himself in court. 
 
In the end, Cohen was sentenced to three years in jail, largely based on his less than total candor with prosecutors. However, still unresolved is the question of whether his actions were truly illegal.  Regardless, prosecutors now can use a possibly erroneous admission of guilt as another brick in their efforts to take down a sitting president.
 
And just this week, we learnedthat Dennis Nathan Cain's home was raided by the FBI, a protected whistleblower regarding the troubled Clinton Foundation's Uranium One dealings; a raid that may in fact be illegal.
 
And now we are witnessing the next phase of coercive and politically motivated prosecutions/persecutions; the use of governmental authority to intimidate targeted political rivals and their associates. In a tweet aimed at Donald Trump, Jr., incoming congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatenedthe president's son with a subpoena for the offense of criticizing her in public.  Her comments have appropriately raised the possibility of an ethics investigation on an elected public official who has yet to take power.  
 
In the meantime, newly elected New York State Attorney Letitia James, a state officialand one with no prior contact with Trump or the Trump investigations has already made it her priority to investigate the President, his family, and his associates.  She has been quoted as saying, "We will use every area of the law to investigate Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well." She says this despite the fact that no scintilla of evidence has been specifically brought to her regarding potential state crimes performed by any of the individuals or entities within the ambit of the broad net which she casts; a clear sign of politically based targeting of American citizens and reminiscent of the targeted attacks undertaken by the IRS against conservative groups under the Obama administration.
 
The implications of these activities are immensely troubling.  The tendencies towards the abuse of power and prosecutorial misconduct that these cases demonstrate represent clear affronts to our democratic system of government and a testament to the dreadful state of affairs our into which our nation will devolve should they not be checked.  
 
There's no question that any tendency towards politically based prosecutorial misconduct must be shut down.  The problem is that doing so may place any resistor or whistleblower at legal and personal risk and simply for calling it out. And that is the greatest danger of all.  
 
 
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
It was a classic Donald Trump move and one that continues to serve him well.  Find the issues his base wants to see solved and take the fight directly to the people. Yesterday was no exception when Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer appeared for a meeting before the press at the White House.  
 
As things usually go in the finely choreographed world of Washington politics, Schumer and Pelosi sat around a table with Vice President Mike Pence and President Trump for what normally would have been a time for photographs and softball questions from the press.  
 
Instead, the President delivered a full-fledged argument on border security and wall funding.  Trump, once again demanded that the wall be funded to the tune of $5 billion while Schumer and Pelosi insisted that no more than $1.7 billion should be allocated to the project by way of a continuing resolution.  
 
The conversation devolved when President Trump observed the difficult position in which Pelosi found herself as she tried to secure the votes necessary to get her elected Speaker of the House.  This prompted Pelosi to chastise the President for suggesting that she did not have the overwhelming support of House Democrats. In the meantime Schumer kept accusing the President of wanting to shut down the government.  The President finally concluded the meeting by resoundingly accepting the responsibility of shutting down the government if his demands for wall funding were not met.  
 
In the end, it was the most fascinating political exchange ever with drama rivaling those seen in the best reality shows and replete with an ending reminiscent of a "You're Fired" episode.  It was so entertaining, in fact, that it has earned a "Feature Video" status in our Library page.
 
To be sure, the exchange was the first of many heated confrontations to surely take place over the next two years.  But there are other insights to be gained from this meeting.
 
First, you can rest assured that President Trump will shut down the government when Schumer and Pelosi fail to bring him the necessary votes to fund the wall in an amount he believes is necessary.  Second, for all those Democrats who thought they would be seeing a more subdued Donald J. Trump as a result of the gains they made in the House of Representatives, they should reconsider that impression.  
 
And finally, like Pelosi and Schumer did Tuesday, the Democrats are going to appear paltry and petty when they continue to resist the President over an extra $3.3 billion for a wall in a budget numbering in the trillions of dollars.  As a matter of fact, Pelosi and Schumer may have just handed President Trump his own Reagan-youth-and-inexperience" moment.  
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves 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, at the very beginning, when the discussion regarding Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation dealt with issues of substance.  Admittedly, it was a very brief period, but during that time there were many who observed that then-Judge Kavanaugh was no conservative, that he had served too long in the appellate line, and that his views were not so much about protecting the Constitution against Progressive attacks, but about protecting stare decisis and upholding the rule of law as decided by prior courts.  
 
There were those who raised the concern that then-Judge Kavanaugh was not the strongest of textualists.  Most notably, political critic Ben Shapiro observed that Kavanaugh was "known for walking across the aisle."  Specifically, Shapiro cited Kavanaugh's agreement with Chief Justice John Roberts in Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services and in Seven-Sky v. Holder that Obamacare penalties were taxes, opening the door for the legalization of the federal encroachment on health care.
 
My first observation of Kavanaugh as a moderate stemmed from his continued insistence that as a Supreme Court justice, he would consider himself a member of a team, working with his colleagues to deliver a product.  
 
I don't subscribe to that view.   Rather, I believe it fundamental that each justice considers himself or herself the last bastion of independent thought and review a case on the merits, independently of what others may think, and then, sell his or her position to others.  If he or she is successful, that's great.  If not, there's something called a dissent.  
 
And now, on his first vote of significance as a member of the Supreme Court, Justice Kavanaugh seems to solidify the perception that he is indeed a moderate and an eager member of Team Roberts.   Because of this, a case called Gee v. Planned Parenthood will never see the Supreme Court.  
 
In Gee, the Court was asked whether a private citizen had the right to bring a legal action against the state for decisions made regarding Medicaid providers. The question had been debated before in other circuits and the answer had consistently been that a private citizen does have the right to seek action in the court; that is, until now, when the court in Louisiana said it did not.  The question is a procedural one, not a substantive or social one, but as Justice Thomas said in his dissent, the problem here is that "some respondents are named 'Planned Parenthood.'"
 
In deciding whether the Court will hear a case, four members voting in favor of hearing the case, or "granting certiorari," is all that is required.  Predictably, the four liberal members of the Court voted against hearing the case.  The three staunch conservatives voted in favor. In seeking a fourth, all eyes turned to Chief Justice John Roberts and Kavanaugh.  What would they do?
 
Roberts voted against.  And disappointingly, and perhaps ominously, Kavanaugh sided with him. 
 
Clearly, it is premature to base any major impressions on Kavanaugh's future voting patterns on the strength of this one vote on a procedural question.  But two things are certain: Kavanaugh will not be a conservative stallion, and Roberts just found himself a malleable "team member."
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves 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.
 
Last week, prosecutors for the Southern District of New York and Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered their sentencing recommendations regarding former counsel for President Donald Trump, Michael Cohen.  As previously reported by The Federalist Pages, their memos provided no significant evidence against the President.  Specifically, and to the most direct point, the sentencing recommendations did not add any information regarding claims of Russian collusion on the part of President Trump, which is the original directive to the Mueller investigation, nor do they suggest that there was any sign of obstruction of justice on the part of the President.
 
What the memo did mention for the first time is an allegation of campaign finance violations on the part of then-candidate Trump. This focus represents a whole new direction for investigators, one that was not previously contemplated.  The charge of campaign financing violations, based on money paid to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, is based on the claim that Cohen was directed to make the payments that would eventually reach the two women by the President himself.  
 
This renewed investigative direction has sent political pundits ablaze regarding potential prosecutorial scenarios for President Trump.  Never mind that the bar for successful prosecution is very high, or that the allegation is presently only based on statements made by Cohen (amongst the most discredited and conflicted witnesses imaginable), or even that then-candidate Trump likely had a legally defensible position for having engaged in the agreements with Daniels and McDougal during his campaign without a requirement that the money be channeled through his campaign accounts.  
 
Those issues are immaterial because what is truly at stake is the opportunity to take down a sitting president hated and feared by the press and the establishment.  
 
The Democrats, who are on the eve of taking control of the House of Representatives, have made it their goal to make Trump their greatest nemesis.  Like the relentless quest for the Holy Grail, Democrats would take no greater joy during the next two years than to 1) stop every one of Trump's agenda items; and 2) get him out of power.  If they can exploit any opportunity to embarrass the President and demonize him, they will.  As evidence for this point, we have Congressman Adam Schiff, the likely incoming House Intelligence Chairman, who almost giddily said on "Face The Nation," there's a real possibility that "on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him."  
 
This is more than a mere concern on Schiff's part; it is an agenda item.
 
In the face of these developments and associated chants, the road before the nation becomes distinctly clear.  First, the Democrats in the House of Representatives will do everything in their power to obstruct anything of importance that President Trump wishes to accomplish.  For them, Trump is an illegitimate President, one that had no right to defeat Hillary Clinton in the first place.  Second, to this day, they cannot come to grips with the harsh reality that President Trump won because of Russian collusion, but rather because he ran a great campaign concentrating on seeking electoral college votes and because Hillary Clinton was the worst candidate the Democrats could have proffered.  
 
Third, and even more demoralizing to Democrats is that President Trump has accomplished more in two years than Obama accomplish in two terms.  From his conservative appointments to the courts, to the scaling down of taxes, to the overt demonstration of the futility and oppressiveness of the Paris Climate Accord, to the takedown of ISIS and the jump start of the economy, Democrats have been unable to deal with Trump's effectiveness and the furtherance of the national stability his agenda has provided.  
 
These realities coupled with the virtual dissolution of the Russian collusion allegations have left the Democrats desperate for a talking point and no greater talking point exists than the involvement of the President in an extra-marital, immoral sex scandal with legal overtones, whether they are real or not.  
 
All this leaves us with a recipe for a totally fruitless and unproductive two-year cycle save for the promotion of greater discord amongst Americans and the continuance and amplification of fractionation amongst countrymen.  
 
And that is going to make for a very long and painful haul to the 2020 elections for everyone.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves 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.
 
Insidious:  working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner.
 
Mr. Gowdy. Why is the appearance of bias as insidious as actual bias?
 
Mr. Comey. The appearance of bias is as important. I don't know exactly what the word "insidious" means, so I'm not saying that one. 
 


On Friday, Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey met in a closed meeting with members of Congress to discuss Hillary Clinton's email investigation and Comey's handling thereof. Comey's initial response to being interviewed was to avoid a closed hearing, apparently preferring an open setting. After realizing that he was not in a legal position to demand conditions upon the conduct of the hearing, Comey negotiated a deal whereby he would appear for the closed-door hearing provided that a full transcript of the hearing was released to the public.  That may have been a mistake on Comey's part. 
 
It is apparent that Comey's plan regarding this meeting, a link to whose transcript may be found at The Federalist Page's Library, was to be as evasive as possible, a plan that was supported by the assigned counsel from the Department of Justice.  
 
It seems the key tactic of Comey's approach was to feign ignorance at the questions he was asked.  As a result, Comey claimed he did not have knowledge or awareness of some of the most elemental aspects of the Clinton email investigation and of his duties and responsibilities as FBI Director.  
 
For example, when Comey was asked whether FBI investigator, Peter Strzoch, expressed his bias against then Candidate Donald Trump, Comey said he was not aware of any such bias.  As a matter of fact, after much interrogatory wrangling with Congressman Trey Gowdy, Comey finally admitted that he likely would not have allowed Strzok to continue on the case if he had known of the investigator's intense bias.  
 
When asked whether a text by Strzok claiming that Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidency 100 million to zero was demonstrative of bias, Comey said he could not answer that question because he did not know what Strzok's intent was when he delivered that text.  Additionally, Comey maintained that he did not know whether he would have fired Strzok over his actions during the Clinton email investigation and his overt display of bias.
 
After continuing to be fended off by Comey's feigned ignorance, Gowdy finally asked, "Why is the appearance of bias as insidious as actual bias?  Comey responded, "I don't know exactly what the word 'insidious' means, so I'm not saying that one."
 
Claiming ignorance can, under certain circumstances, be a very effective legal defense strategy, but if one is going to claim a lack of knowledge, particularly a lawyer, he best be honest about his ignorance because he is bound to be candid with the tribunal, particular (if such a higher requirement is even possible) if the attorney is under oath.  
 
James Comey is an attorney.  So, let's take him at his word.  If James Comey truly did not know that Strzok had this intense, ingrained  bias in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump, and if Comey still does not know how he would have acted in the face of such overt bias, then Comey is a gross incompetent who should have never held any position of responsibility within the FBI.  And if James Comey actually does not know the meaning of the word "insidious" as a lawyer, an author, and as the Former Director of the FBI, then Comey is also just plain stupid.  
 
In light of this continued display of stupidity, evasiveness, and corruption, the American people are left with only one conclusion.  
 
Thank God President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves 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 afternoon, the Mueller team and the Special Prosecutors Office for the Southern District of New York submitted a series of memos dealing with their investigation on Russian collusion, obstruction, and campaign illegalities.  In response, the left wing media went abuzz citing the damning implications of the release. One article by Erica Orden and Marshall Cohen of CNN claimed that "Federal prosecutors said for the first time Friday that Michael Cohen acted at the direction of Donald Trump when the former fixer committed two election-related crimes. . . " It also claimed that the memos "exposed deeper entanglements than previously known between Trump, his campaign apparatus and the Russian government, . . ." including a claim of "'political synergy'" between Moscow and Cohen.  Meanwhile, The New York Times headlined a prosecutorial charge that "Trump Directed Illegal Payments During Campaign."
 
In fact, the memos contained little by way of new material, and some of the cited comments were actually mere corollary references to the President with little indication of illegality on his part. 
 
The memos, available at The Federalist Pages Library, are part of the ongoing prosecutorial wrangling against Trump allies Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.  In Cohen's case, the two memos represent sentencing recommendations by the prosecutors from the Southern District of New York and Robert Mueller.  The federal prosecutors recommended "a substantial term of imprisonment" for Cohen while Mueller was much more cryptic stating only that the sentence should "reflect the fact that lying to federal investigators has real consequences, especially where the defendant lied to investigators about critical facts, in an investigation of national importance."
 
But of more interest to the media were the comments implicating Cohen in Russian collusion or campaign finance violations on behalf of, or in coordination with, the President of the United States.  And although the press is doing its best to spin the published comments, in point of fact, no such allegations were made.  
 
First, any objective analysis of these memos must acknowledge that neither refers to the actions of President Trump.  They specifically discuss and detail the actions of Michael Cohen.  In those instances where Trump is mentioned, the references are made solely with regard to the Cohen's actions.  The prosecutor's memo spends some time discussing potential campaign financing violations by Candidate Trump from the standpoint of Michael Cohen.  The allegations made regarding the President, if any, are actually those made by Cohen. In other words, there is no independent evidence presented that President Trump actually did anything wrong. There are contemporaneous comments made by Cohen where he claimed he was acting on behalf of candidate Trump and that he was facilitating Trump's campaign, but these are hearsay comments made by a discredited party sounding like nothing more than boastful and hollow fluffery. 
 
The references to potential Cohen participation in illegal campaign activity present no new insights or information regarding any potential violations on the part of Candidate Trump.  The memos spend a considerable time detailing the previously disclosed events surrounding alleged payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.  But the narrative provides no new details on the events nor does it provide any information regarding any orders from Candidate Trump.  More importantly, the memo does nothing to address the issue of intent on the part of Candidate Trump, a necessary element in any case regarding campaign-finance violations.  Specifically, the memo does nothing to clarify whether Candidate Trump desired to silence the women to keep him from falling into a negative light with his wife and in his business dealings, or whether this was primarily a campaign concern as would be required in a successful prosecution of Trump.
 
The second issue discussed in the Mueller memo is Cohen's involvement in Trump's dealings with the Russians and the possibility of cooperation between the two in influencing the outcome of the presidential election.  Here, the memos offered no evidence that such activities took place.  As a matter of fact, they dealt only with Trump's legal real estate dealings with Russian nationals.  
 
The Manafort memorandum is even less helpful to a potential case against President Trump because it is so heavily redacted. Just as in the Cohen memos, it deals not provide allegations against Trump.  Specifically, the memo makes the case that Manafort engaged in numerous lies after his plea agreement in 2018.  
 
Despite the paucity of information regarding the President and any wrongdoing on his part, the media are doing everything in their power to divine implications that simply do not exist.  CNN's and The New York Times' comments regarding the President having directed Cohen to commit election related crimes is simply not true.  The claim comes from a sentence in the prosecutors’ memo detailing an admission by Cohen.  Specifically, the memo says, "In Particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination and at the direction of Individual 1."  (Individual 1 in the memo is Candidate Trump.)  As is clearly evident, this sentence provides no independent evidence that President Trump actually directed the payments in question.  Rather, it is merely a recitation of the claim made by the already discredited Michael Cohen.  And even if Candidate Trump did direct the payments in question, one cannot conclude based on the information gathered, that the payments were illegal as CNN prematurely asserts.
 
The comment of "political synergy" alluded to by CNN is even more deceitful.  This one comes from the Mueller memo describing a Russian national repeatedly offering Cohen the opportunity to arrange for "'political synergy' and 'synergy on a government level,'" an invitation that Mueller specifies Cohen "never follow[ed] up on."
 
In the end, the media's enthusiasm over the contents of these memos is overplayed, once again demonstrating their zeal to go after the President no matter how fictitious an allegation may be.  Although Friday's claim by the President that he had been completely vindicated by the contents of the memos is overly enthusiastic, to say the least, the media's claim that these memos contained anything threatening against the President is downright unfounded.
 
Once again, we will have to wait for the production of further documents on the part of federal prosecutors before a definitive conclusion can be made.  But this much can be gleaned.  With the information available, Mueller is no closer to establishing a case against Trump today, than he was one year ago.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves 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.
 
Earlier this week, The Federalist Pages reported that President Macrón had reneged on the implementation of a fuel tax that resulting in the worst rioting in France in over ten years.  The Paris, gilet jaunes riots, so called because of the yellow vests worn by demonstrators, are a direct result of President Emmanuel Macrón's decision to raise fuel taxes by the equivalent of 0.25¢ per gallon on gasoline that already costs the equivalent of $6.00 per gallon. Macrón's decision is openly based on his perceived need to cut down on gas consumption in order to fight off global warming.  
 
Although some have hoped that Macrón's capitulation would have resulted in a sense of calm in the street's or Paris, events suggest otherwise.  
 
An on-sceneThe Federalist Pages reporter has just witnessed further demonstrations in the streets of Paris.  On Thursday morning, a group of over 100 demonstrators were seen marching up the streets of Paris chanting for a permanent end to the fuel-tax and an end to Macrón's presidency.  
 
One Parisian said that Macrón's capitulation was hollow because it was only for six months.  Another nearby shop-owner predicted that things were likely to get violent on Saturday, recommending that people stay away from the Champs Élysées that day as that is where the violence would likely take place.  
 
Shop owners responded to Thursday's demonstrators by closing their street-side stores and locking the doors until the police arrived, a sure sign of the continued tension in the streets of Paris. 
 
Although Macrón may have blinked, one thing appears to be certain; Parisians are still not resting comfortably despite the temporary respite to the fuel tax.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves 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.
 
With its growing population and traffic congestion, Florida is dealing with a critical problem: securing the safety of its roads and highways.  Yes, the state has been spending a sizeable amount in road improvement projects; a simple drive up I-75 is all that is needed to see the evidence of that.  
 
But better roads and improved surface technology is only the tip of the asphalt.  Equally as important to ensuring road safety are the men and women responsible for monitoring our roadways and enforcing our traffic laws.
 
Between 2010 and 2017 the number of highway patrol officers (troopers) plummeted by 993, nearly half of the number of the 1,974 troopers the state allots to the Florida Highway Patrol.  These workforce challenges have mirrored the plummeting number of traffic citations generated during the same time period. Between 2011 and 2016, the number of speeding tickets generated by the Florida Highway Patrol dropped from 317,000 to 258,000, or a drop of 19%.  At the same time, the number of licensed drivers has increased from 15,374,230 to 16,568,874, with a commensurate increase in the number of registered vehicles at 16,682,411 in 2016 compared to 14,795,836 in 2011.  More tragically, between 2011 and 2016, the number of vehicular deaths has similarly increased from 2,403 deaths in 2011 to 3,176 deaths in 2016, a 32% increase.
 
Unquestionably, the causes of these trends are multiple. For one, Florida continues to grapple with one of the more robust growth rates in the country, a trend that has taken its population to 20.6 million inhabitants without any signs of slowing down. Moreover, Florida has 122,736 miles of road with 14,298 of those miles belonging to state and federal agencies.  More roads with more cars and more drivers generally amount to more accidents, with drug and alcohol use, and distractions such as texting while driving, playing integral roles in influencing these statistics.  Additionally, the shared jurisdictional responsibilities between state and municipality law enforcement agencies have led to confusion, frustration, and redundancy in costs. 
 
So, although factors such as congestion and carelessness certainly drive the number of vehicular fatalities up in any given year, so do fewer numbers of troopers.
 
And one of the big causes of attrition amongs troopers is pay.  
 
Perhaps the most straightforward concept for improving the FHP's funding situation is simply to increase the amount of money the legislature allocates to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FDHSMV) for the FHP.  However, with the legislature’s competing funding priorities, it has been difficult to adequately fund highway enforcement 
 
Another solution would be to simply do away with the FHP and allow the monitoring of Florida's highways to be undertaken by Florida's sheriffs.  The FHP workforce could then be transferred to the various sheriffs’ departments to handle the extra load along with some extra state funding.  
 
However, a pilot program of this sort died in the State House of Representatives in 2017, and it does not appear there is any more appetite for such a program in 2019. Another possibility is transferring the FHP out of the auspices of the FDHSMV and placing under the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).  Such a move, in theory, could save millions in administrative costs while streamlining law enforcement responsibilities within the state.  But FDLE is not eager to absorb the FHP and its associated responsibilities.
 
Whichever alternative is chosen, it is clear that adequately patrolling Florida's highways will continue to be a challenge that if left unresolved will cost Floridians' lives.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves 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.
 
Yesterday, I watched an incredibly insightful interview by Christianne Amanpour with the Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, a link to which I have posted in our new and growing Library.  Szijjarto demonstrated incredible composure as he warded off repeated assaults from Amanpour on Hungarian nationalism and the country's immigration policies.  And I also noticed one other thing; no one is rioting in Budapest.  
 
As previously reported in "The Federalist Pages," the Paris, gilet jaunes riots, so called because of the yellow vests worn by demonstrators, are a direct result of President Emmanuel Macrón's decision to raise fuel taxes by the equivalent of 0.25¢ per gallon on gasoline that already costs the equivalent of $6.00 per gallon. Macrón's decision is openly based on his perceived need to cut down on gas consumption in order to fight off global warming.  The reality is that France accounts for about 2% of the world's oil consumption, and it is already second only to the United States in nuclear power production.  So, to say that Macrón's fuel tax is going to make any difference in the world's carbon footprint defies reality.  
 
There must be another reason that drives Macrón to raising fuel taxes.  
 
Macrón is a globalist.  More importantly, Macrón is strongly pro-European Union.  It is very possible that his policy positions on global warming and carbon footprints are overtures designed to appease the interests of the members of the European Union in an effort to strengthen his position there in anticipation of a post-presidential position.  
 
But Macrón has been too eager to abandon the interests of his own constituency.  Macrón is viewed as the president of the rich, and his green tax incentives are not seen by the French as altruistic efforts for the betterment of the world order, but rather as a self-indulgent effort by the President of the rich.  French citizens appropriately view his fuel taxes as disproportionately impacting the poor and middle classes, a perception confirmed by the New York Times in its recent report on the French's reaction to the fuel tax.  In fact in a poll conducted on Saturday, after the initiation of the French riots, gilet jaunes carried a 72% approval rating among the French.  Scenes of the French police and firemen removing their covers in solidarity with the demonstrators that have been flowing through social media validate that impression.
 
It is interesting that these events should come in the heels of Macrón's harsh criticisms of President Trump and his strongly "nationalistic" views.  In his zeal to criticize the American President, Macrón has actually revealed a much more threatening truth about his priorities to the French people, Macrón does not value the importance of representing the interests of France in the world stage.  In fact, he would rather have France suffer through painful measures such as exorbitant green taxes to appease the needs of others over the needs of the French.  
 
Indeed, in making his case, Macrón openly conflated the context in which President Trump uses the word "nationalism." President Trump's "nationalism" is philosophy upholding the societal benefits of the nation-state in international and domestic policies.  Macrón's contention that that the term "nationalism" even as used by Trump, denoted the arrogant, ethnocentric view of believing in the superiority one's race even if it means the eradication of all others.  
 
It is clear, that Trump's call for a healthy sense of nationalism and patriotism is inconsistent with the false charge made by President Macrón at the 100 years anniversary of the Armistice ending World War I.
 
After having failed to make the case against President Trump, the implication of Macrón's globalist philosophies and the lack of regional representation they beget played themselves out in a hostile and painful manner in the City of Lights, which has lately become the City of Bonfires. 
 
Yes, the gilet jaunesriots are about abusive tax policies.  They are also about ramming a green agenda down the throats of the people when they can ill afford to comply despite the futility of the actions they are being asked to undertake.  But they are also an anti-antinationalist movement that recognizes the precarious position in which a population is placed when its leader does not uphold his or her nation's priorities.  
 
It is evident that Hungary recognizes this truth, much to Christiane Amanpour's chagrin.  And France has not, much to the chagrin of its own citizenry.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves 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.
 
He stood at the White House steps on January 20, 1989, flanked by his wife, Barbara.  He was dressed impeccably, of course, as the occasion of the peaceful transition of power in the most powerful nation of the world calls for a certain degree of regality. He was bidding goodbye to arguably the most colorful couple to have inhabited the White House, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, and with that, acknowledging that an era had ended and that a new one would begin.
 
That is my most vivid image of George H. W. Bush. Undoubtedly, there were others, like when I read his lips saying that there would be no new taxes and when he proclaimed his disdain for broccoli.  But that moment when he accepted the helm of the greatest vessel ever assembled was particularly poignant.  Even then, we all knew that Reagan was going to be a monumental twentieth-century figure, but as we watched the outgoing couple bid adieux to the new we felt reassured because of the steadfastness and decency exuded by the incoming president.
 
Last night, just short of thirty years later, the man who led us through life after Reagan, the man who acted against the oppressive actions of tyrannical regimes, the man who helped decrease the nation's deficit despite having to break his word to the American people, passed away.  And sadness consumed me. 

George H. W. Bush had all the makings of a great president.  Armed with the experience of having served as a naval officer in World War II, having been the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, United States Ambassador to the United Nations and a member of the House of Representatives, there appeared to be no battle he could not handle.  He was humble, mild-mannered, and respectful, all qualities that America would want in its President.  Most characteristic of his reverential and reserved style was when he refused to "spike the football" on the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the falling of the Berlin Wall.  The negotiations were amongst the most delicate in history, but Bush, despite criticisms from both of his domestic flanks, maneuvered the process to a successful conclusion.  His actions with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev brought about the unification of Germany and signaled the end of the Cold War.
 
And when Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian dictator, was using his platform to traffic drugs into the United States, it was H.W. who put a stop to it.  Bush sent 26,000 American troops to topple and capture Noriega, ultimately forcing the maligned dictator to stand trial in the United States.  
 
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in what many perceived to be a local skirmish.  Herbert Walker Bush led the nation again.  Bush would not let Iraq's aggressive posture stand unchallenged.  He would singlehandedly assemble a coalition of 35 nations to stampede into Kuwait and oust Saddam Hussein from the boundaries of its oil-producing neighbor.  It was also Bush who made the decision, despite the undefended state of the road to Baghdad, not to chase the retreating Iraqi forces to their capital and send the region into a sea of uncertainty.
 
This is when we got to know President H. W. Bush, as his presidency was the first to be scrutinized by the unyielding eye of 24-7 media coverage.  It was also at this time that I had my closest, yet incredibly removed association with H.W.  He was my Commander in Chief when we mobilized into war for the first time since Vietnam.
 
It somehow defies reality that President Bush would have only served one term.  Despite his great judgment on foreign matters and even some success in the domestic front with the Americans With Disabilities Act, Bush would come face to face with a political firestorm that would ultimately lead to his downfall. 
 
If Donald Trump was revolutionary in the twenty-first century, Bill Clinton was equally so at the end of the twentieth.  Unquestionably, H.W., who at one time saw an 89% approval rating, opened the door to distrust and a presidential challenge when he reneged on his emphatic promise not to raise taxes.  Although historical analysis and retrospect acknowledge that the decision made in the face of a mounting deficit was not unwarranted, the political consequences were devastating.  Rightly or wrongly, Bush was viewed with mistrust, and the nation's right wing flirted with the possibility of another Republican candidate.  Of course, a lackluster economy with a high unemployment rate would not help his cause.  And the morally challenged, saxophone playing, sunglass-bespectacled, youthful, and hip Bill Clinton received a great uplift from the rogue business tycoon, Ross Perot, who once again proved that the presence of a third party candidate in a presidential race will only serve to harm the candidate he is most like. Bush earned a mere 37.5 of the vote in his 1992 reelection bid, the least for any major party candidate in recent history.  
 
Many say that adding to his woes was a poorly selected plank of family values as the centerpiece of his campaign when Americans were concerned about jobs.  That may be so.  But as we moved across the Clinton presidency with its sex scandals and witnessed the nation's continued moral decay, many of us reflecting upon that message recognize that H. W. Bush was right.  
 
Of course, H.W.'s legacies would not be limited to his contributions in international relations and politics.  He and his wife Barbara raised another president and a governor, and their grandchildren may accomplish even more.  

But perhaps the greatest single testament to H.W.'s character and the standards he upheld was a holographic letter he penned to incoming President Bill Clinton, the man who painfully unseated him. Within it is this sentence:
 
"There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair.  I'm not a very good one to give advice; but just don't let the critics discourage you or push you off course."  
 
Sage advice, not just for an incoming President, but also for every one of us.  
 
Thank you for your service, Mr. President, and may God keep you close.  
 
 
 
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 from 2014-2018. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 ​

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Yesterday, the Center for Disease Control published its life expectancy data for 2017.  The overall finding is that the life expectancy for Americans declined in 2017 to 78.6 years of age from 78.7 years of age in 2016.  As predicted, the finding was taken as a call to arms by members of the left who immediately concluded the cause of the diminishing numbers was America's failing health care system.  
 
Appearing in Neil Cavuto's Show, yesterday, Dr. Roshini Raj from the NYU Medical Center, summed up her conclusions this way, "The healthcare system does not seem to be working when we compare ourselves with those of countries like Japan or Sweden who have a life expectancy into the 80s."
 
The reality is that the data reported by the CDC does not in any way support Dr. Raj's conclusion.  In fact, during the same interview, Dr. Raj, seemingly inadvertently dismissed the validity of her own conclusions by saying, "Today, the CDC said that part of it is drug overdose and suicide."  And when asked about asked about the big picture that was causing the problems, she said, "We are a sedentary nation. We are an obese nation.  We are a stressed-out nation."  In fact, her suggestions for improvement centered on enacting policies designed to reduce stress in the workplace.  
 
There isn't a single piece of information produced by the CDC yesterday that would point to a deteriorating health care system or a poorly functioning one as the cause of the decrease in life expectancy. In fact, the opposite may be true. For example, although the overall life expectancy dropped, the death rate amongst members of every age group except 25-44 year-olds and those over 84 years of age actually improved. Indeed, in those groups engaged in greater health care consumption and therefore more impacted by its quality (the 45-74 year olds) the mortality actually dropped.  And although one could correctly argue that 85 year-olds and older are also consumers of health care, the issues at play in this group are much more complicated and no conclusion could be gleamed from the data available. It was in those age groups that are not large consumers of health care where the mortality rate rose.
 
So, if it isn't healthcare, what could be causing the death rates of 25-44 year-olds to rise so precipitously?  The CDC, Dr. Raj, and even the Wall Street Journal answered this question: accidents and suicides with smaller contributions made from a rising incidence of deaths from pneumonia and influenza.  
 
Indeed, for the two biggest killers and the two most directly affected by the quality of healthcare delivered, heart disease, and cancer, the death rates diminished markedly. (See Tables below.) 
 
Two conclusions can be made even from this cursory review of the data.  The first, ironically enough, is that no conclusion can be made from the data available regarding any relationship between our health care system and the changes in mortality rate.  Second, if there are any implications from the data, it is that issues of lifestyle and drug use are the primary drivers of life expectancy. 
 
It is very easy to spin large, overarching information like mortality data and life expectancy in a direction that you want simply to make a point, and the left does this with impunity.  Over the next few weeks, I predict you will hear many slights against our health care system based on the most recent CDC life expectancy data.  When you do, be assured of this: there isn't a shred of evidence upon which to base a conclusion that America's healthcare system is to blame for this diminution in life expectancy numbers.  Rather, it is likely the bias of the speaker you're listening to and not the science.  
 
 
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 from 2014-2018.  He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Once again, we find ourselves in the midst of a political game of chicken between competing views for the future of our country.  And once again, the ones who are stuck in the middle are the American people.  
 
This time, the battle of wills is over the funding of the wall to our southern border.  President Trump wants $5 billion allocated to the wall's construction.  The Democrats, on the other hand, have said they are wiling to commit $1.6 billion to the wall, and not a penny more.  
 
In the meantime, the nation is being exposed to the reality of an immigration crisis Democrats and the mainstream media said did not exist and now vainly argue is due to the President's new policies on immigration.
 
Let's make one thing perfectly clear; the only reason we find ourselves in the midst of an immigration crisis of this magnitude is because of the decades of ineptitude and incompetence by Congress in not providing the resources and personnel needed to definitively seal the border.
 
Enter President Donald J. Trump.  President Trump has been one of the few ferocious advocates for border control.  One of his central and most important planks to his platform is the building of the border wall and the definitive eradication of illegal immigration.  In fact, a Harvard/Harris poll from August 1, 2018, showed that 76% of the American people want border security, and with the impact of the images and goings-on related to the Central American caravan, that number has likely crept up even higher. 
 
Amazingly, the Republican members of Congress who are now entering the waning days of their control of all three steeples of power do not seem to have the resolve to push a $5 billion allocation for border wall funding to the president's desk. The purported reasons are as varied as they are hollow.  We can't afford it they say.  Walls are a terrible way to maintain security, and there are other, more effective ways of securing our border.  
 
No one is saying that the border wall should be built at the expense of not funding other complementary measures of promoting border security.  Quite the opposite, Congress should be funding every possible avenue designed to help ensure the security and safety of America's borders.  Why the Republican-led Congress cannot get a bill to the president's desk designing and funding a permanent, virtually impenetrable solution for our border security inclusive of the construction of an effective wall against southern migrants defies reality. 
 
In the meantime, President Trump, who is one of the few who understands the gravity of this situation, has demonstrated his resolve to see the implementation of effective border security policy by expressing his willingness shutdown the government if the wall is not funded.  The response by some has been to dare him to do it.  
 
Just like during the Obama administration, opponents and members of the swamp have predicted that the earth will end and the skies will rain down fire and fury if the federal government is allowed to go unfunded even for ten minutes. Unfortunately for the doomsayers, we have already seen that the negative effects of shutting down the federal government are not that terrible.  As a matter of fact, about the most visible consequence of the last shutdown was President Obama's vengeful closure of the World War II memorial in Washington, D.C., at the same time that a group of Honor Flight participants arrived to be honored for their incredible, patriotic service during World War II.  
 
Recognizing that the consequences of a government shutdown are not as harrowing as the swamp and the mainstream media would like us to believe, the next fear-mongering argument to be made is the threat of a political meltdown.  Here again, the doomsayers are wrong.  
 
First, let us recall that the one who closed the government during the Obama era was the Republican Congress.  If anything, even if we were to accept the doomsayers' political fallout prediction, it was Congress that lost against the President, a fact that actually favors President Trump.   
 
Moreover, as opposed to the shutdown during the Obama administration where the issue was spending, the overwhelming majority of the American public side with the President on immigration reform, and enthusiastically so.  No reasonable observer can cast aspersions to the President's position on immigration and the urgency with which the issue needs to be definitively resolved.  If a confrontation were to take place, it is the President who is in the position of strength on this issue and positioned to gain.  
 
President Trump is right on immigration, and he should demand cooperation from the Congress, even if enforcing his demand results in a government shutdown.  In the end, he will win, and more importantly, so will the American people.
 
 
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 from 2014-2018.  He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
 

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
This morning, I received a message from my father-in-law.  It contained a link of a Spanish language Facebook post in a page named Habitante, which translates to "Inhabitant."  The post appeared on April 8, 2018.  I was unable to confirm the authenticity and identity of Habitante, but his words and insights are so compelling and authentic, regardless of the author's identity that I must share it with you today. 
 
What follows is my translation of the post written by Habitante (In trying to stick to his message, I have, to the best of my abilities, not disturbed his grammar and paragraph structure).
 
Tell me if it does not fit the Democrats' agenda.
 
Musings from a Cuban of 85 years of age who, at 30 years of age, adored Castro.
 
What is COMMUNISM and how does it function?
 
Here comes the overarching concept:
 
First, they promise you many beautiful things.  Equality, health, "free", education, "free", this "free", that "free", etc. etc.  EYE on the word FREE, this is the first lie from those communist demagogues.
 
After they assume power, they tell you that the opposition is your "enemy", the gringos are your "enemies", your family and friends on the right are your "enemies", etc. etc.  EYE on the word ENEMIES.
 
They need a ghost enemy, first to polarize the people, then to divide families, and lastly to blame the "Yankee Imperialists" for every one of their failures. 
 
Then they take your weapons with the one hand, and with the other, they give them to their sympathizers.  Then they nationalize the industries, take all the businesses, they tell you that you cannot sell your properties (your car, your house, etc.) nor may you open your own business.
 
Everything belongs to the state, or as they say, to "the people".   They lower the salaries (only those of the professionals; the soldiers are "purchased" with higher salaries), because all those "free" services have to be paid and the payment comes out of your wages.  In other words, you earned 1000 now they give you 200.  The remaining 800 is for your "free" health and education. But with those 200 you can neither eat nor fix your house that time is deteriorating, nor your car, which is already old.  Then they subsidize your food and they give you a series of "accounts" where each month you can go to the grocery store and get 1 egg, 1 pound of potatoes, and . . . there is nothing else.
 
They cause hunger, the people no longer have time to innovate, nor money to invest, nor incentive to study.  Your time is employed "inventing", devising ways to survive where there is famine, your children are malnourished, your buildings look like ruins, the people envy what little you can get, your brothers are exiles, your uncle is in prison because of political issues, your friends have disappeared, and you are left disillusioned.  
 
Then comes the cruelest part.  It turns out that the government is officially "ATHEIST".  The churches are off limits.  The bishops were expelled, the priests and the pastors were sent to a concentration camp, a type of modern day slavery.
 
You have spiritual needs, but there are no open temples, you cannot pray in public nor should you have a Bible in hand. Life has hit you hard (really communism was the one that knocked you out) and left you without goals or aspirations.
 
Communism hemorrhaged you, but worse, it took the spiritual part of you, that part which takes us beyond our ephemeral existence of flesh and bone, beyond the dust and the sad reality that surrounds us.
 
Everything was lost, the soul, the desires, the education, a complete corruption of all our values, of everything that makes us humans. THAT IS COMMUNISM. If you want to prove it, just study Cuban history.  Not the history that Castro tells you.  The real history without censorship.  Talk to the old people who saw the former Soviet Union, with those from East Germany.
 
You don't have to go that far, ask the Venezuelans what they think of the socialist hand in the 21st century.  For that reason, my dear Latin American, I AM AND CONTINUE TO BE 100% ANTICOMMUNIST.  The problem is not the United States, the problem is your opportunistic dictator who sells you a utopic and failed philosophy.  Neither Castro, nor Che, nor Chavez are examples to be emulated.
 
Enough of looking at the disaster they left us. Everything I have told you, all this is their legacy.  As to everything else, LOOK FOR GOD, LOVE YOUR COUNTRY AND DON'T EVER LET THEM TELL YOU THAT YOUR BROTHER IS YOUR "ENEMY".  WORK, STRUGGLE FOR WHAT IS YOURS, DON'T LET THEM GIVE YOU ANYTHING FOR "FREE" AND ELIMINATE FROM YOUR LAND ANYTHING THAT SMELLS LIKE COMMUNISM!!!
 
Please do not erase this as doing so means you are bothered by having your friends read this in your wall, and in so doing becoming an accomplice of a certain reality.!!!
 
 
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 from 2014-2018. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
On Thanksgiving Sunday, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the soon-to-be Democrat congresswoman from New York, continued her uninterrupted trek into the land of offensiveness and ignorance by tweeting, "Asking to be considered a refugee & applying for status isn’t a crime. It wasn’t for Jewish families fleeing Germany. It wasn’t for targeted families fleeing Rwanda. It wasn’t for communities fleeing war-torn Syria. And it isn’t for those fleeing violence in Central America.” 
 
Unlike other ignorant comments Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has made, her comparison of the plight of Central American migrants to those of the victims of genocide is so horribly offensive and devoid of any validity that it is wholly unworthy of a response, but I will; not because Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's comments merit it, but because of the importance of never forgetting the evil that humans can impose on each other.  
 
In 1935, as part of Adolf Hitler's perverted plan to rid Germany of Jewish influence, a series of laws were enacted that would ostracize Jews from German society. In 1939, Germany invaded Poland. The newly captured Jews were placed in segregation camps.  By 1942, Germany's anti-Semitic policies had progressed to an overt effort at eradicating the Jewish race.  Government run death squads were mobilized and used to round and systematically murder Jews.  Initially, the Jews were killed via mass shootings, but finding these techniques to be too bloody for Hitler's taste, a change in policy was implemented that would call for rounding up all Jews, place them in freight trains and transport them to extermination camps.  Those who survived the starvation, disease, the trek, torture, and the human experimentation were placed in gas chambers and gassed to death.  Over the span of seven years, over six million Jews were systematically exterminated by the direct and affirmative actions of an evil regime. 
 
In Rwanda, the Hutu government systematically undertook the extermination of the members of the Tutsi as part of a civil war.  Between April 7, 1994, and July of that year, the Hutu ordered Rwanda's military to identify all Tutsi and kill them.  It was ordered to spare no one, not even Tutsi babies.  People were identified as Tutsi, either through personal knowledge or official identification and shot on the spot.  In total, between 500,000 and one million Tutsi were killed accounting for approximately 70% of the Tutsi population.  The extermination was the fastest in human history.  When the Tutsi successfully fought back and took control of the nation's capital, it was the Hutu's turn to flee.
 
In Syria, over twelve million people have either fled or been killed since the internal war for control of the regime began seven years ago.  Not the least of the atrocities associated with the war in Syria is the gassing of citizens by the relentlessly cruel President Bashar al-Assad. Compounding this situation was the infiltration of eastern Syria by ISIS with its allegiance to the most radicalized version of Islam and its vicious methods of enforcing it.  ISIS routinely engaged in the capture, rape, torture, and decapitation of its perceived enemies, and noncombatant religious adversaries, especially women and gays.  
 
A comparison of the conditions in Syria during its Civil War, Rwanda in the Tutsi extermination campaign, and Germany during the Holocaust with the economic plight of Central Americans is simply unconscionable to entertain.  The people leaving Central America are not leaving because they are being exterminated. They are not fleeing because their governments are oppressing them.  They are not seeking refuge from recurrent chemical weapons attacks or being gassed in gas chambers.  With few exceptions, they are not even in danger of being killed.  Interview after interview of Central American migrants reveal that these people are largely seeking entry into the United States because they are hoping for an opportunity.  Some have openly said they are looking for a job.  Others speak of obtaining healthcare.  And at least one needed to get to the United States to get a prosthesis. 
 
I don't mean to minimize the trials, tribulations, and suffering of the people of Central America.  I am certain that the living conditions in Central America are dire. In fact, I have previously written about the terrible conditions in El Salvador as a result of the turf battle between MS 13 and Barrios 18.  But to compare the conditions in Central America, the motivations to flee the region, and the consequences of failing to leave with the greatest acts of systemic evil of the past 100 years is truly an insult to those who endured it.  What's worse, the comments of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and others like her who trivialize the reality of human evil for the sake of a political jab is about the cruelest, most disingenuous and offensive rhetoric in which one can engage.  
 
Ms. Ocasio Cortez is about to take her place among the ranks of America's most elite elected officials.  It's high time she started acting like one, if she's even capable of 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 from 2014-2018. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.

by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Earlier this week, The Federalist Pages reported that an Obama appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants regardless of the point of entry and how the entry occurred.  At the time we noted the ruling's inconsistency with the accepted powers of the President of the United States as enacted in 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the Immigration and Naturalizations Act.  Understandably, President Trump responded by calling out activist judges and the continuing problem of legislating from the bench.  
 
Predictably, the President's comments received a great deal of pushback from the Left and from the mainstream media.  Especially surprising was the flack the President took from Chief Justice John Roberts who is normally quiet on such matters.  In response to a query from the Associated Press Roberts said, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.  What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.  That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
 
Chief Justice Roberts is patently wrong.  
 
The presence of activist judges, judges who further a specific agenda from the bench rather than neutrally apply the law, has been recognized since the nation's inception.  In fact, in a letter to William Jarvis dated September 28, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control."  
 
The fact of the matter is that judges are in a much greater position to legislate from the bench than was ever intended.  
 
The Constitution is completely silent on who determines the constitutionality of a law.  Indeed, there was much discussion at the time of the nation's founding regarding whose responsibility it was to declare a law unconstitutional.  The general consensus was that if a law was written outside of the bounds of the Constitution, it was void and had no merit. For that reason, an unconstitutional law was not to be obeyed.  But who determines if a law is unconstitutional?
 
The Framers actually placed the burden of adhering to the provisions within the Constitution upon every elected official.  Article VI of the Constitution requires that all state and federal officials make a vow of allegiance to the Constitution.  Inherent in such a vow is a self-imposed prohibition on passing or upholding any unconstitutional law.
 
Others within the Framers thought the determination of unconstitutionality was best made by the states.  Since the states had collectively decided to yield certain enumerated powers to the new national government, then shouldn't those very states be the ones to say whether a law is constitutional?
 
The determination that the Supreme Court was the ultimate authority of all things constitutional was actually arrived at by the singlehanded action of the Supreme Court itself.  In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most influential case in American jurisprudence, that it would be the Supreme Court that would determine whether a law was unconstitutional.  In fact, his opinion in that case did not prohibit any other methods of determining constitutionality, but did open the floodgates for the historical pattern of the Supreme Court striking down laws passed by Congress and actions undertaken by the executive branch.  
 
This still uncorrected arrangement has been a massive facilitator for judges to steer the country's direction.  In essence, ever since Marbury all a judge has had to do to obstruct an agenda with which he or she disagrees is to strike the law or action down as unconstitutional, a position that is way outside of the bounds of the judiciary as initially intended.  
 
So accepted has the practice of a judge's legislative intervention become that college professors at our more liberal institutions of higher learning are teaching their students that part of a judge's role is to steer society in the direction of social justice and equality. Needless to say, such a role was never intended for the national government, much less for the judiciary, the only branch "not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control."
 
In his pushback against Chief Justice Roberts' misguided statements, President Trump tweeted, the Ninth Circuit "has become a dumping ground for certain lawyers looking for easy wins and delays."  
 
President Trump is correct.  Although the present decision regarding asylum seekers was made at the district court level, the court selected in which to try the case answers to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal circuit and the one most hostile to President Trump and his policies.  It is no coincidence that the Ninth Circuit is where liberal activists go to have conservative legislation or executive actions contrary to their views reversed.  So biased and inconsistent with conventional constitutional thought is the Ninth Circuit that, as President Trump noted in a tweet, 70% of its opinions are overturned by the Supreme Court.  Such a high percentage of nullifications would not be possible if it weren't for the infiltration of that circuit with activist judges willing to inscribe their partisan views upon the Constitution.  
 
As is overwhelmingly clear, Chief Justice Roberts' perception of judges as neutral actors doing their "level best to do equal right to those appearing before them" is inconsistent with reality.  Indeed, it is disturbing that Chief Justice Roberts fails to acknowledge the most important challenge affecting America's judiciary; the partisan workings of activist judges upon the law, the constitution, and the nation's posterity. Instead of denying the existence of Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Trump judges, Chief Justice Roberts ought to be acknowledging their existence and fighting to counteract such propensities within his branch of government.  
 
Clearly, the actions of activist judges must be counteracted if we are to avoid "the despotism of the oligarchy" to which Jefferson alluded in his previously cited letter to Jarvis.  President Trump hit on one solution: break up the Ninth Circuit as it has become too large and too powerful.  
 
But there are other solutions.  First. Congress can limit the scope of certain decisions to the geographic jurisdiction of the court.  So for example, if the judge writes an order requiring the President to accept the applications of asylum seekers who enter the United States outside of a designated point of entry, the order would only apply to cases within that judge's district; in this case, northern California.  Such a restriction would do away with a district judge's ability to paralyze the whole nation's policies with a stroke of the pen.  
 
But of course, the most effective provision would be the legislative override addition to the Constitution where Congress would have the ability to keep a law operational despite the opinion of the Court.  Although foreign to the United States, the concept of restricting the power of the judiciary is immensely important and employed in other countries.  For example, the Supreme Court of England cannot strike down a law passed by Parliament.  Rather, the court may only make a recommendation that an offensive law be changed.  Additionally, Canada passed a legislative override bill in 1982, which had a chilling effect on an activist judiciary.  Other countries like Ireland, Australia, and Israel have checks on the judiciary's power.  
 
Finally, a legislative override provision would be quite similar to an idea submitted by James Madison.   In a letter to Jefferson regarding the latter's proposal to allow judges to serve as the supreme authority on the constitutionality of Virginia's laws, Madison suggested that no law that was struck down by the judiciary be disallowed until an intervening session of the Virginia Assembly.  The Assembly would then have the opportunity, by either a 3/4 or 2/3 majority, to overrule the Court.  If the legislature passed the resolution in support of the bill's continued operation, then the statute would continue to be functional regardless of the opinion of the court.  If not, the Court's ruling would stand. 
 
Clearly, so long as we do nothing, the Court's power will continue to grow and continue to serve as the final say on the survival of whatever idea any of the other branches may devise in addressing the societal challenges of the day.  If allowed to continue, the courts, by their actions and as predicted by Jefferson, will rule continue to take its place as a small, largely unelected class that dictates the ultimate standards for the rest of the nation.  
 
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 from 2014-2018. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.