by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Last week, Senator Kamala Harris once again demonstrated her vitriol and antipathy towards an American law-enforcement institution. This time, she directed her leftist, anti-American sentiment to one of the most challenged, selfless, and invaluable institutions of the federal government: the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
 
In a Senate confirmation hearing for ICE Director Nominee Ronald Vitiello, Kamala Harris asked whether he shared the perception that ICE was causing fear and mistrust like the KKK. 
 
“Are you aware that there is a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants and specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?” she asked.  
 
Vitiello, trying to maintain his composure responded, "I do not see a parallel between the power and authority that ICE has to do its job and the agents and officers who do it professionally and excellently with lots of compassion [and the KKK]." 
 
Kamala's answer was just as intellectually hollow, "Sir how can you be the head of an agency and be unaware of how your agency is being perceived by certain communities?"
 
Really, Senator?  Which communities, exactly?
 
Clearly, what Harris was aiming to do was express her own objectionable opinion that ICE is somehow like the KKK.  But Harris knew that if she took ownership of such an opinion, she would get irreparably attacked.  What was worse in her mind, is that she would lose support for her desired presidential race.  
 
So instead, Harris chose to claim that there was some sort of perceptionby a made-up group that ICE was as racially motivated and evil as the KKK, which, by the way, arose as the militant arm of the Democratic Party, the same party to which Harris pledges her allegiance.  Predictably, Harris has demonstrated no support of the existence of such a perception of ICE, or even of a community where such a perception exists.  Similarly, The Federalist Pages been unable to identify a single major poll that asked whether ICE and its activities are in any way reminiscent or comparable to the KKK. 
 
In fact, one poll performed by Politico in July 2018 showed the opposite.  In this poll, 54% favored retaining ICE while only 25% wished to "get rid of" it. Additionally, in that same poll, a plurality, or 40%, looked less favorably upon a congressional candidate wishing to get rid of ICE.  This compared to 26% who favored such candidates.  Interestingly, this latter percentage was smaller than those who either didn't care one way or the other, or had no opinion, combined (33%).
 
The fact is that Harris used this fictitious, fabricated community to express what is, in fact, her own rancid opinion about law enforcing, patriotic, self-sacrificing Americans. 
 
Of course, Kamala Harris's cowardly attack did not shield her from scorn.   In fact, there is a community that perceives Harris to be anti-American.  Not that she is, of course.  But that's the perception of many communities.
 
One American who wished to remain anonymous even asked, "How can Kamala remain a Senator or think of becoming President when she is unaware that there is a community that perceives her to be anti-American?"
 
As of this writing, Senator Harris has not responded to numerous attempts by The Federalist Pages to have her answer this question. 
 
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.
 
Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA) destroyed his chances being a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States yesterday when he hinted that the United States would be capable of deploying its nuclear arsenal against Americans who went to war over the defense of their Second Amendment rights.  
 
Swalwell made the comment shortly following the publication of an op-ed he authored appearing in USA Today and suggesting that the United States should engage in a mandatory "assault weapons" buy-back program designed to confiscate what he called military-style weapons, while at the same time banning their production and sale.  
 
His aggressive posture drew some resistance in the Twittersphere when Newsmax host, John Cardillo, tweeted an article written by Benjy Sarlin from NBCnews.com on the topic with a comment stating, "Make no mistake, Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and have all power rest with the state. These people are dangerously obsessed with power."
 
Joe Biggs another twitterer with over 200,000 followers responded by writing,  "So basically @RepSwalwellwants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your f@#$#g mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov (sic) all the power." (redaction added)
 
Swalwell responded to Biggs with, "And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities."
 
The tweet, clearly suggesting that the United States would deploy its nuclear weapons arsenal against Americans defending their constitutional rights, caused an immediate and predictable uproar.  For many, the mere thought of a mandatory weapons confiscation program was enough to insight ire, but when that comment was intermingled with a suggestion that America's nuclear arsenal was in any way at play against its own citizens, insurrection or not, Swalwell crossed a bridge that was way too far.  
 
True to many leftists, Swalwell attempted to backtrack, in this case by saying that his comment was sarcastic.  Sarcastic it was, but his biting wit was directed at Briggs' suggestion of a war, not at the deployment of nuclear weapons.  That part of the tweet appeared serious, just like the use of the government's overwhelming force as a stick to force a discussion about surrendering one's constitutional rights.
 
Swalwell's imprudence is the latest in a string of self-destructing radical Democrats whose presidential aspirations have imploded from their unchecked zeal at pursuing their leftist agenda.  First, there was Senator Corey Booker and his Spartacus moment during Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings.  Booker was followed by Senator Elizabeth Warren's annihilation of all reasonable chances at prevailing in a Democratic primary with her ridiculous and false claims of being a Native American.  Next, we witnessed Senator Kamala Harris's comparison of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the KKK, or at least her alleged perception of the agency.  Couple that with liberal legal darling, Michael Avenatti and his recent arrest for an alleged domestic violence charge against his own wife.  And who can forget Andrew Cuomo's unforced destruction by claiming that America was never that great?  Finally, there's Hillary Clinton who, although more difficult to topple, has done herself great harm through her many improprieties and ill-advised comments. 
 
Indeed, the Democratic presidential field is dwindling with every month that passes through the unforced errors of its members providing a greater path for the only person in the Democratic Party with a snowball's chance at taking on President Trump in the general, billionaire Richard Bloomberg.
 
 
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.
 
Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, verbally ordered the President of the United States to reinstate CCN Reporter Jim Acosta's hard pass to access the White House on Friday.  The judge, who sits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has not posted his ruling yet, forcing us, at least temporarily, to rely on press reports for details.
 
Predictably, CNN has called the ruling a huge victory for the First Amendment.  However, according to numerous press reports, Judge Kelly took issue, not with any alleged affronts upon the First Amendment, but rather, the process used to revoke Acosta's hard pass.  According to one news outlet, the judge said that Sarah Huckabee Sander's "belated efforts at [answering Acosta's concerns] were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process."  Additionally, according to Breitbart, the judge found that in creating press conferences, the President created a public forum to which limited due process rights attach.
 
I disagree.  Contrary to Judge Kelly's view, the White House press conference is an internal working of the executive branch done solely for a public relations and communications purpose and at the pleasure of the President of the United States. As such, and as reported previously by The Federalist Pages, when the Court interferes with how the President conducts his press conferences, it is essentially intruding into the rightful powers of the President of the United States, as Chief Executive, in conducting the internal dealings of the executive branch.
 
Seen from this angle, which is the dominant issue in this matter, it becomes clear that the President mustzealously pursue this case for the sake of the preservation of the autonomy of the executive branch.  
 
Let's be clear.  There is no finality to Friday's ruling.  The judge's order was the implementation of a temporaryrestraining order against the President until such time that the case actually goes to trial.  Strategically, the President now has a couple of opportunities available to him.  First, he can let the case play out at the District Court, and if the judge should rule against him at the trial, he can appeal.  Alternatively, the President may appeal the temporary injunction as a matter of law, right now.  Either way, it is imperative that the President take the case to the next level. If he does so, it is likely that a higher court would not accept the invitation for the judiciary to intrude into the inner workings of another branch of government.  If argued as a matter of separation of powers and the comity between the branches of government, it is likely the district court's position will not be upheld.  If it does, I am equally confident the Supreme Court will take this case because of the constitutional implications it carries to the inner workings of government, and will reverse it.  
 
Make no mistake, although this case is being painted with a brush held by Acosta and the media, it actually represents, yet another small but significant intrusion onto the proper balance of powers; an intrusion with which the Framers, except for John Marshall, would be in total disagreement.
 
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 November 7, 2018, a testy exchange took place between the President of the United States and an arrogant, disruptive CNN reporter, named Jim Acosta.  The exchange took place when Acosta asked a question of President Trump during a White House Press Conference.  Acosta asked, after being recognized by the President, why he used the term "invasion" when referring to the actions of Central American migrants making their way to the United States.  
 
The President curtly responded that he used the word invasion because that's what he thought it was.  
 
Acosta then continued by lecturing the President on the definition of an invasion, to which the President responded by maintaining his position and observing that Acosta and he obviously had a difference of opinion.
 
Nevertheless, Acosta persisted, reiterating the same answered question of why the President insisted on using the term "invasion" and continuing with his dissertation holding that it was not an invasion.  
 
By this point, the President was done with this exchange and told Acosta as much while actually uttering the words, "Enough," and "Put down the mic."
 
Acosta neither stopped nor put down the microphone, and when a White House intern reached to retrieve it, Acosta tugged back against her, at one point pushing back against her left arm with his forearm.  
 
Later that day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted the decision to have Acosta's hard pass revoked. And later, when Acosta went to retrieve a hard pass, as he normally does, the Secret Service told him he would not be receiving one.
 
Shortly thereafter, the world ended, at least according to CNN.  
 
Members of the press have viewed the President's revocation of Acosta's pass as grossly intolerant, even oppressive.  They call the action an affront to Freedom of the Press, to Freedom of Speech, and the Freedom to Due Process under the law.  They have also claimed that President Trump revoked Acosta's hard pass because Trump does not like Acosta.
 
The White House, on the other hand, views the action as falling well within its powers to address the unruly and disruptive behavior of an out of control journalist who refuses to follow directions and to cooperate with the President's attempt at conducting the fair and orderly proceedings of a press conference.  
 
With neither side blinking, the argument is now heading to the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia as CNN and Mr. Acosta have filed a complaint against the President and others.  Of course, the White House has filed its response.  
 
The bottom line of the situation is this: neither Acosta nor CNN have the inherent right to attend a White House briefing nor to force their attendance upon the President of the United States.  In the meantime, the President has the full authority to engage any reporter he wishes and to conduct the White House Press Conference in whatever manner he desires. Neither CNN's nor Acosta's rights have been infringed, and neither the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech nor Freedom of the Press may ever be construed to give a reporter, or anyone else for that matter, the right to force themselves into the White House for any purpose.  
 
Some argue that the conduct of the President runs contrary to convention.  Specifically, they cite other presidents who have had confrontations with correspondents like Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather, and Helen Thomas and have done so without revoking their passes.  This may be so, but neither of these reporters has refused to hand over the microphone when specifically told to do so.  They also cite tradition and decorum, but the argument can equally be lodged at Acosta regarding his conduct.
 
These arguments, although interesting, speak to public relations issues, statesmanship, and collegiality, and are largely immaterial because the argument before the court is purely a legal one, not a political one (at least in theory).
 
The legal arguments are more complex, but lead to the same fruitless conclusion.  We have already addressed the non-argument of the First Amendment.  But how about the Fifth Amendment and Due Process? 
 
Here, the plaintiffs rely on one case: Sherill v. Knight.  In that 1977 case decided in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, a reporter named Robert Sherrill was continuously denied access to the White House press conference by Secret Service.  When he inquired why, the Secret Service would respond with a vague excuse of presidential security.  
 
In reviewing the matter, the court held that the Secret Service owed Mr. Sherill some sort of due process.  From this, CNN argues, the White House has violated Acosta's due process rights.  
 
However, Acosta's circumstances are clearly distinguishable from those of Sherrill.  First, Acosta was given access, and he abused it. 
 
Second, even if one were going to make the argument of notice, the White House has met it.  The Supreme Court has held that in order for someone to demonstrate a breach of his or her due process rights, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she had an interest that was being infringed, that the government did not give him or her notice of the infringement, and that there was no opportunity to seek redress.  Crucial to the understanding of Acosta's due process rights is the concept laid out by the Court, that the sophistication/formality of the "process" is related to the degree of importance of the interest.  So, for example, if the government is removing your access to a specific parking space that you previously used, such an act involving a relatively minor interest would require a lower level of formality in procedures than if it was taking away your social security benefits.  
 
In Acosta's case, his interest in being able to continue to access the press conference is relatively insubstantial. For example, he can still exercise his First Amendment rights to free speech regardless of whether he attends. Similarly, for CNN, the White House lists 50 other CNN reporters with hard passes, so CNN isn't really dependent on Jim Acosta in continuing to cover the President.  Second, and most importantly to the court, because CNN has not fired him, Acosta has not lost a single dime in wages because of the decision. As a matter of fact, one could argue that his position as a journalist has actually improved!
 
Having established Acosta's less than monumental interest in accessing the White House, what about the procedures?  Well, he received notice when Sanders tweeted out the White House Press Office's decision to withdraw his pass and again when Secret Service told him upon his presentation to the White House for access. Then, he and CNN exercised their rights to redress when they wrote Sanders asking that the matter be rectified.  And they received a ruling on the redress when Sanders, in writing, responded in the negative.
 
Finally, consider all the things CNN is asking the court to do in order to satisfy Jim Acosta.  First, it is asking the court to create a new right; the right for a reporter to remain in the White House press corps once given access despite a presidential decision against it.  Second, it is asking the court to intrude into the President's authority on how to run a press briefing by limiting his ability to determine who does and who does not attend.  Third, CNN is asking the court to further muddy the separation of powers doctrine by intruding into another branch's purview and direct it on how it should perform its internal functions.  Although admittedly, the court has done so many times, such a move, in this case, would be particularly brazen.  And finally, it is being asked to disturb the comity between the branches to appease the misbehaviors of one arrogant, pathologically narcissistic journalist.  
 
Put simply, the destination to which CNN is asking the court travel is a number of bridges too far.  Even if CNN's lawsuit were to pass the scrutiny of some activist judge, such a ruling would surely fail either in appeal or to at Supreme Court where it would surely go.  
 
Either way, CNN's lawsuit will fail.  They're much better off reprimanding Acosta for his inappropriateness, like they should have done from the beginning, and drop this case before it finishes blowing up on them.
 
 
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.
 
A quick look at the stars reveals that Hillary Clinton will run again for President of the United States in 2020. If you can't see it, look closer, it's there.
 
The reason why isn't just because it's in the stars. It's because she's an egomaniac that will do anything in support of her fantasy of being President of the United States, no matter what the negative repercussions of pursuing it may be to her message, her party, or her country.  (You can hear more about my reasoning in my podcast from today.)
 
In an article by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein appearing in the Wall Street Journal, the authors predicted that Clinton would run for President because she would not allow her career to be ended by a rank amateur, namely Donald J. Trump.  And she's going to do it by concentrating on universal health care.  
 
Undoubtedly, a Hillary Clinton run for President would be a calamity.  Consider all the bad things have happened to Mrs. Clinton since she lost her race to President Trump.  First, she actually proposed and defended the position that Bill Clinton should not have stepped down as President even though he infamously had sex with a White House intern in the Oval Office.  She said this despite calling for President Trump to step down because he uttered disparaging comments about women in a private conversation in a private recreational vehicle while not being President.  And when asked how she could defend her husband's actions, she said, in the midst of the Me Too Movement, that it was okay because Monica Lewinsky was an adult, and she knew what she was doing.
 
Clinton also purposefully said in an interview that non-Republicans could not be civil with Republicans because they were trying to destroy everything she stood for.  As a matter of fact, according to Mrs. Clinton, civility could not return until the Democrats assumed power.  How do you think, that video will play out in the general election?  
 
If that wasn't bad enough, there's the matter of her book, What Happened,where she appears as a sore loser and blames everyone else, including women and the press, for her loss rather than reflecting on her shortcomings as a candidate.  Notably, it is in this book where Mrs. Clinton infamously spoke about the press being against her when in fact, few candidates have found a more favorable press than Mrs. Clinton did in her 2016 run. 
 
Moreover, as time passed and people had the opportunity to view her conduct through the clarity of hindsight, many, including some of her more ardent supporters, have warmed up to the idea that Mrs. Clinton and her Clinton Foundation were engaged in inappropriate dealings with foreign entities for her own personal enrichment.  Many now believe that her mishandling of classified and non-classified emails was done in an effort to provide cover for her activities related to the Clinton Foundation.  And don't forget, the nexus between her dealings with Uranium One and her personal enrichment has become a radioactive issue for her.
 
Overall, it appears that there are just too many scandals involving Mrs. Clinton to make her a viable candidate.  But she is not the first candidate with seemingly insurmountable problems that have gone on to win an election.  Just look at President Donald Trump.  But the final dagger to Mrs. Clinton's candidacy is also the most effective: Clinton is simply not liked.  
 
Even if Mrs. Clinton tried to explain away her discrediting issues, which she is a master at doing, she will ultimately be unsuccessful because of her lack of interpersonal skills.  
 
In short, Mrs. Clinton is not likable.  From her high-pitched voice, to her witchlike laugh, to her arrogant demeanor, Hillary lost and will lose again because she does not resonate with non-elites.  They simply don't like her.  She appears uncaring and judgmental to everyone outside of her inner circles in the high-rises of New York City, and that, as in times prior, will be her downfall.  
 
 
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.
 
Today, we honor those patriots who engaged in the most selfless activity they could; serving their country so the rest of us may live free.  
 
Clearly, the United States is blessed in having the greatest fighting force ever assembled.  But the strength of our armed forces lies not in our accumulation of expensive equipment, or in our collection of gallant ships, or even in our warbirds that stealthily fly through the night.  Rather, our greatest asset is the fine collection of selfless men and women who, despite knowing that theirs was a journey from which they may never return, undertook it nevertheless.  
 
And they did it for us!  
 
These men and women put it all on the line, not because they hated what lied before them, but because they loved what stood behind them.  They knew they were fighting for something so magnificent that it was worth sacrificing everything.  
 
They sacrificed because they knewthat upon these United States of America laid humanity's greatest hope.  They knew that they were part of a great experiment that redefined the relationship between man and government, and they knew that it was an experiment that could not, under any circumstances, fail.  
 
As we remember and reflect upon the great and varied sacrifices our veterans have made for us throughout history, let us resolve to not allow their efforts to fade into posterity.  
 
Let us acknowledge that it is not enough for us to remember their courage, their selflessness, and their sacrifice.  If we are truly to honor their lives then we must also pick up their bayonets and continue their march where they left off. 
 
Let us teach our children the meaning of their actions and the reasons for their sacrifices.  Let's remember that there are so many things greater than ourselves; things like our faiths, our families, and our country, and that none of these will long survive unless we are willing to fight, and yes, die, for their continued existence.  
 
Let us undertake each and every act as if the legacy of these fighting men and women depend on the success of each of our actions because I assure you that they do.  
 
And let us resolve to continuously strive to serve as the great example for others to emulate and to recognize the great potential of a nation resigned to promote peace, even if such a peace means having to reluctantly pick up a sword.
 
Thank you, veterans.  Thank you so much for your service.
 
 
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.
 
When attacking President Trump, his opponents love to say that words have meaning.  Well, it seems that their superhero, President Emmanuel Macron, doesn't either, or worse yet, is shameless in his use of them.
 
Last week signaled the run-up to Armistice Day, the date marking that fateful day 100 years ago when World War I came to a halt. It was on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day on the eleventh month of 1918 when the guns went silent in Europe. By the time all was said and done, 20 million people died in the war to end all war.  
 
The United States, as a result of its entry into the war in defense of France, lost over 116,000 men.  And let's not forget, World War I did not end all wars, as an even worse evil arose a mere 20 years later against which the world, once again, was engaged in mortal battle.  During that epic war, France once again was overrun, and once again, the United States came to her defense.  This time, 419,000 Americans died, amongst which were 29,000 in Normandy and 19,000 more in the Battle of the Bulge.  Unquestionably, French soil is saturated with American blood.
 
The run-up to the 100-year anniversary of Armistice Day was a time for somber reflection for many world leaders, and Macron was no exception.  Unfortunately, though, his insights were telling of his selfishness and of his disregard for the gratitude his country should display towards its ally from across the pond.  During one interview, Macron noted the continued threat to European stability that is Russia and used that as his foundation to call for the creation of a European army.  Among other reasons, Macron said such an army was necessary because Europe needs to be able to defend itself against Russia, China, and the United States.
 
The thought that a French leader would entertain the mere possibility of defending his or her nation against the United States, which has been, until this day, the primary defender of France is amazingly arrogant and inherently offensive to the United States.  Adding to the slight is that it was delivered mere days prior to the 100 years anniversary of Armistice Day signaling, in part, the colossal sacrifice the United States undertook in the name of France.  
 
To add injury to the insult, Macron then went on the offensive during his remarks at the commemoration of that most solemn day. Instead of maintaining a conciliatory tone laced with gratitude and humility, he instead chose to go on the attack against the American President by saying that Trump's nationalistic philosophy is an evil that led to the deaths of millions in Europe.  Macron said, “In saying ‘Our interests first, whatever happens to the others,' you erase the most precious thing a nation can have, that which makes it live, that which causes it to be great and that which is most important: Its moral values.”
 
His comments shine in disingenuousness.  No one who objectively observes President Trump can rightfully conclude that Trump's call for nationalism includes a disregard for others to the point of assuring their destruction.  
 
Trump's nationalism is a call for pride in one's country.  It is an acknowledgment that if each country fights for its own interests and promotes its uniqueness and diversity in its negotiations and in its interactions with others, then the outcome of those interactions will be a benefit to all.   To claim otherwise is to cast Trump's words in a false light and to give them a meaning they were never meant to have.
 
Macron then promulgates his lack of candor by transitioning from disingenuousness to outright falsehood when he said, "Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism.  Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism."
 
Here, Macron defies reality since patriotism can only proceed from a sense of nationalism.  Clearly, there would never be a single act of patriotism if it weren't for an underlying sense of nationalism.
 
Let's be perfectly clear.  Macron is a socialistic, collectivist globalist who despises and envies the United States.  Moreover, in his anti-nationalistic views, he has declared that even the very existence of his native France is of little concern to him, which may explain why he is polling so poorly there.  
 
Even more tragically, in his disregard for his allies and for the qualities of French nationalism, he has made a mockery of a most solemn occasion that could have been marked by unbridled unity amongst the different member nations of a fighting force that ultimately accomplished an incredible good for humanity.  In doing so, he disrespected not only the first ally he will run to should he ever be attacked in the future, but the memory of all those who defended France so he could utter his offensiveness in his native French.
 
 
 
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.
 
Four days following the end of general elections, the process of vote tabulation in Florida appears to be irreparably corrupted due primarily to the misfeasance displayed by two rogue Florida counties, Palm Beach and Broward.  
 
Each county continued to demonstrate significant election aberrancies long after the election had been called.  Both Broward and Palm Beach failed to meet the 7:30 Tuesday deadline for reporting early and mail-in election tabulations.  These ballots, according to Florida law, had to have been tabulated before Election Day so they could be disclosed 30 minutes following the close of the polls.  Sixty-five out of Florida's 67 counties timely completed including highly populated counties such as Miami Dade and Orange.  
 
More significantly, in Broward County, election officials, led by Supervisor of Elections Dr. Brenda Snipes, were still tabulating without allowing the process to be witnessed as required by Florida's Public Records Act.  The move caused Governor Rick Scott to sue the two counties' election offices for the right to inspect.  Scott prevailed in both hearings leading to court ordersrequiring that both Supervisors of Elections allow the Governor and his team to inspect the tabulation process.  Neither Supervisor complied with the orders by the 7 pm Friday deadline, a clear affront to the judiciary. 
 
Snipes herself has a long recordof negligence, if not downright fraudulence. In 2016 Snipes intentionally and improperly destroyed ballots in the Democratic primary election involving Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz according to a May 2018 circuit judge ruling. Also in 2016, a medical marijuana amendment was left off some ballots distributed in Broward County.  That same year, the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office began posting elections results prior to the closing of the polling stations.  In 2012, over 1,000 uncounted ballots were discovered a week after the election, and in 2004, 58,000 mail-in ballots were never delivered to voters. 
 
Snipes continued her gross incompetence this Friday when she mishandled 205 votes irrevocably mixing valid and invalid ballots and then counting them.  According to The Miami Heraldthere were approximately 20 invalid ballots in this bunch. 
 
This morning, the Broward Sheriff's Department respondedto a call at a Tamarac Lakes Community Center where two locked ballot boxes were found unattended.  This after a report of another box of ballots being found abandoned in a Broward County school.  Additionally, video footage demonstrated private vehicles dropping off ballot boxes onto rental trucks in Broward County without the establishment of a chain of custody.  Similar trucks were also observed delivering boxes into the Supervisor of Elections Office.
 
Many, including Congressman Matt Gaetz have called for Governor Scott to remove Snipes from her position due to her gross incompetence.  If Governor Scott were to remove Snipes, she would be only the second Supervisor of Elections to be removed from office by a governor, the first one being Miriam Oliphant who, ironically, is Snipes’ predecessor.  
 
On Saturday, Broward County met the preliminary reporting deadline of 12 pm. The county reported 714,859 votes, up from the original tabulation of 695,799 representing  an increase of 19,060 votes.  While in Palm Beach County, where The Federalist Pageswas unable to determine how many ballots had been cast and were outstanding, reports are of 15,000 new ballots having appeared.  
 
As of Friday afternoon, Nelson trailedScott by 14,922.
 
The state has now ordered machine recounts of a handful of races including the Scott/Nelson race.  The counties have until 3pm Thursday to comply.  
 
All the while, attorneys on both sides are flying complaints at the courts and authorities.  With all these indiscretions and disgruntlement, it is hard to imagine a resolution that would instill Floridians with confidence in their voting process; and that's the greatest tragedy of all. 
 
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 today, The Federalist Pages reported its prediction that Governor Rick Scott, despite the votes still remaining to be counted, would win Florida's senatorial race against incumbent Senator Bill Nelson, by a razor-thin margin of less than 0.25%.  That was based, among other factors, on an estimated number of about 30,111 early votes in Broward County that had yet to be counted.  This number of outstanding early ballots was based on the reported difference between the counted 665,688 ballots and the 695,799 turned in ballots in Broward.  
 
Now, Fox News is reporting Broward County was claiming there were 707,223 ballots cast on Election Day, and that the number had subsequently increased to 712,840 ballots.  Interestingly, as of this writing at 2235 on November 8, 2018, the Florida Division of Elections is showing 680,568 ballots cast in Broward County.  
 
In the meantime, in Palm Beach County, where The Federalist Pages was unable to determine how many ballots had been cast and were outstanding, Fox is reporting that 15,000 new ballots have appeared.  This while in the remaining 65 other Florida counties, the only ballots remaining to be counted, as required by law, are the military mail-in ballots and the provisional votes.  
 
In the meantime, the election indiscretions have already flipped the Agricultural Commissions race from Republican to Democrat.
 
Since the publication of The Federalist Pages' prediction, Senator Marco Rubio took to Twitter to call attention to the possibility of voter tampering in Broward County.  His series of tweets include an explanation of applicable Florida elections law and images of boxes full of ballots being unloaded in Broward County.  If correct, such an act would be a violation of Florida elections laws.  
 
In the meantime, a Democrat funded team of attorneys has arrived in Florida with the stated intent of "winning the election."  And in another, late-breaking development, Governor Scott has filed suit against the Broward County Supervisor of Elections, Dr. Brenda C. Snipes, alleging noncompliance by the Supervisor of Elections with Florida's Public Records Act by not allowing the inspection of the ballots.  The allegations are part of what appears to be a broader array of inconsistencies in vote counting.  For example, mail-in ballots and early votes are supposed to be counted on the day prior to the election so that they may be recorded within 30 minutes after the polls close.  Two days later, neither Broward nor Palm Beach Counties have complied. Additionally, in erroneously filled or damaged ballots, it falls upon the county canvassing board to determine the voter intent, if possible, and to fill in a substitute ballot under public scrutiny. There are allegations made that the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office is undertaking that process at this time behind closed doors.  
 
It is interesting to note that Broward is the same county that encountered such difficulties in the 2000 presidential election. Also of significance is Dr. Snipe's history of election indiscretions as determined by a judgment against her for having destroyed ballots in the 2016 congressional race.  
 
Although nothing is known for certain relating to the Broward County Election results, this is going to be a long process for the State of Florida.  
 
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.
 
Americans must continue to bite its nails for some time before they know whether Florida will add another Senator to the Republican caucus.  
 
On Tuesday, most outlets were reporting either that Governor Rick Scott had defeated Bill Nelson, or that he led his opponent by about 37,000 votes.   As of this writing, however, the Florida Division of Election tallies the votes in the race for the United States Senate at 4,091,417 for Governor Rick Scott and 4,074,073 for Bill Nelson, a 17,344 vote lead for Scott.  But not all the votes have been counted.  
 
First, the unofficial results do not become certified until November 10, and voting machine recounts are due on November 15. If there are any discrepancies, or if the margin is less than 0.25%, then manual recounts in those districts would be required.  The next day, or November 16, the military mail-in ballots and the overseas ballots postmarked on Election Day or prior are counted.  And finally, on November 20, the state would certify the official results the winner barring a court injunction.  
 
Significantly, still absent from these tallies are the Palm Beach and Broward county vote-by-mail numbers, each of which is a Democrat stronghold.  In Broward County, for example, Nelson leads with 69% of the vote and in Palm Beach County, he has a 58% advantage.  In Broward County alone, there are about 30,111 votes that have not been counted. At a clip of 69% of the votes in favor of Nelson, it would result in 20,777 votes in his favor, still not enough to bring him over the top because of the 9,334 votes that would be gained by Scott keeping him in the lead by 5,901 votes.  The Federalist Pages was unable to verify how many votes were still missing in Palm Beach County.  
 
There are also provisional votes to be counted; 989 in Miami where Nelson has a 60% margin translating to 386 votes for Scott and 603 for Nelson.  In Hillsborough, where Nelson has a 54% lead, there are 760 votes outstanding giving 410 votes to Nelson and 340 to Scott.  In Polk, Scott has a 57% lead with 497 votes left to be counted bringing 285 votes to Scott and 211 to Nelson.  In Pasco, Scott has a 57% lead with 180 votes remaining meaning 103 more votes for Scott and 77 more for Nelson.  In Brevard, there are 285 votes remaining, and Scott carries 57% of the vote earning him 162 more votes to Nelson's 123.  And finally, in Orange County, where Nelson has a 62% advantage, there are 401 votes remaining, giving him 264 more votes to 137.
 
Tallying it all up Nelson earns 4,096,538 votes to Scott's 4,098,731.  
 
Of course, to these numbers, we would have to add the Palm Beach County numbers.  But also remaining is the great equalizer, the military mail-in vote, of approximately 22,000 members who ought to break strongly in favor of Scott.
 
Taking all these factors into consideration, The Federalist Pages predicts Rick Scott will ultimately retain his lead by a margin of less than 0.25% of the vote and will be Florida's next Senator.
 
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.
 
America woke up this morning to the news of yet another mass shooting, this time at Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, California.  The shooting left twelve dead, plus the gunman, who appeared to have committed suicide according to a press conference held by Ventura County Sheriff Geoff Dean. 
 
This time, the lone gunman was a former Marine who used a Glock 21 .45-caliber with an illegal, extended magazine.  The gunman, a 28-year-old male did have prior contacts with police, but none were serious.  Sheriff Dean, who was on his last day on the job when as held the press conference, was able to confirm that the gunman legally owned the weapon, but that the extended magazine was illegal in California.  In a seemingly unrelated incident in April, police were called to the gunman's home over reports of a disturbance.  They found him acting irrationally, resulting in a crisis intervention on the part of authorities, but he was released once he was cleared of being an imminent threat. 
 
The shooting at the Borderline Bar & Grill took place at about 11:20 pm local time during a "college night" event where 100-150 people were in attendance.  There were multiple reports of clients shattering windows and evacuating the premises as the shooting was taking place.  Reports of smoke bombs were also made.
 
One of the first officers at the scene was Sergeant Ron Helus, a 29 year veteran of the force who was fatally shot when he entered the restaurant to confront the gunman.
 
The incident is sure to revive the ongoing debate over gun regulation and the Second Amendment.  This event, however, does not fit many of the narratives on either side in the issue.  For one, the shooter legally owned his weapon, and thus far, short of one incident involving a domestic disturbance has not been demonstrated to have ongoing mental health issues.  Sheriff Dean did suggest the gunman could be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, but as of yet, there is no public information to confirm that suggestion. 
 
Although the gun was legally owned, the gunman employed an illegal gun accessory.  The Glock-45 is a semi-automatic weapon and not a long arm or a rifle.  
 
Events are still developing in this story.
 
 
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.
 
Andrew Gillum could have been the first African American governor in the history of Florida.  Indeed, the last time this degree of historical significance graced a candidate, he won the Presidency of the United States.  
 
But Andrew Gillum's race turned out differently. Tallahassee's mayor had an excellent performance in his primary election defeating Florida darling Gwen Graham when many felt he couldn't. Gillum exceeded all expectations, and he did it at a fraction of the cost.  
 
Why Gillum won the primary will be the object of endless discussion and debate, but in the end, the qualities that put him over the top in the primary were the same ones that doomed him in the general. 
 
Gillum ran on plans to make Florida a sanctuary state, to implement an income tax, and to turn the Florida Supreme Court Progressive. The prospects of those changes were too repugnant to Floridians.  Florida is an extremely diverse state, but in the face of one of the greatest economies in the country and Floridians' aversion to a state income tax the prospect of turning in a polarly opposite direction was too much for the electorate. 
 
With no experience in Florida government, the Republican candidate and soon to be governor, Ron Desantis, will have a difficult transition from his present duties as a congressman.  But perhaps the easiest task for him is arguably the most substantial, picking three conservative Supreme Court judges.  A Gillum win would have maintained and rejuvenated the Court's liberal majority.  But now, the 4-3 votes will become 1-6 for the liberals; sweet justice for social conservatives and strict constitutionalists who have seen their legislations recurrently blown up by a hostile court.  Oh, and let's not forget the chilling effect the new Court will have on redistricting challenges by the Democrats a mere three years away.  
 
For Republicans, there is great hope in a DeSantis governorship, but like President Trump, the effect on the Florida Supreme Court alone will suffice in making this win worthwhile.
 
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 night, Florida Governor Rick Scott pulled off an unlikely feat; defeating an incumbent for the United States Senate.
 
In many ways, the time was ripe for a change. The incumbent, Senator Bill Nelson, had been in power since 2001 and never passed one major piece of legislation nor voiced an innovative agenda for the country.  The empty suit description was finally starting to stick.  
 
In the meantime, Governor Rick Scott delivered a perfect example of conservative management with great results. Throughout his tenure, Florida's economy has been among the strongest in the nation.  The state has been either the friendliest or the second friendliest, business state in the country.  
 
And if Florida was a mecca for business expansion, it was largely due to Governor Scott's resolve to make it so. Few governors have been so aggressive in business recruitment as Governor Rick Scott. Under him, taxes have been cut recurrently and an amendment to the Florida Constitution submitted by the Governor and approved by the voters will make it harder for the legislature to raise taxes.  
 
And then there are the hurricanes.  Governor Scott's management of hurricane preparedness and response has been rivaled only by the amazing performance of Governor Jeb Bush.  At one point, Governor Scott found himself organizing assets, not only in Florida but also in Puerto Rico.  Even at the end, amidst running a tough campaign for the Senate, Governor Scott's response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Michael was stellar.  
 
And then, of course, there is President Trump. The President's numerous appearances in Florida were definitely a factor as the conservative right was driven to the ballot box, ultimately pulling Scott across the finish line.  
 
And adding to Nelson's ineptness, how many times did we hear President Trump say that he had never even met Senator Nelson while hearing every day from Governor Scott during times of turmoil? Regardless of President Trump's influence, he never would have been pulled Governor Scott across the senatorial finish line if it weren't for Scott's favorable standing in his state.  
 
 
Unquestionably, Governor Scott's successful election is a testament to a well-run campaign and great messaging, but in the end, his election was a reward for being an incredible governor.  Hopefully, he'll end up making as great a senator as he did a governor.  

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.
 
Once again, we find ourselves at a midterm election, and once again, the nation is at an impasse.  Essentially we are confronted with a referendum on two alternative and incompatible visions for the future of our nation.  
 
On the one hand, we have the followers of Donald Trump.  Take away what you feel about Donald Trump himself, his tweets, his comments. . . his quips.  The fact is that certain people placed him in power, and those people believe in certain things.  If you support Donald Trump or the candidates in his camp, you are supporting the aspirations and dreams of this group of Americans.   
 
These are people who believe that the United States is the greatest country in the world.  They believe this status carries with it certain responsibilities.  Those include an affirmative leadership role globally.
 
They also believe the United States is truly exceptional, not because of a shared ethnicity since the country certainly does not have that, but because of a certain set of circumstances that made this country an exception to all others.  They believe it is the human spirit that drives greatness, freedom, and success.  They believe that the more government gets the hell out of the people's lives, the better off the people are, and the better off the government and the nation is.
 
The great flag bearers of this philosophy are people like, Mark Levin, John Bolton, Rush Limbaugh, and Ben Shapiro.
 
On the other, we have the followers of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.  Once again, remove from the analysis whatever feelings you may have towards Sanders or Clinton.  Instead, think of the things the people who put them in positions of authority believe. These folks are not the Democrats of old.  They are not the people who, like John F. Kennedy, asked not what their country could do for them, but what they could do for their country.  These people are totally different.
 
They don't believe that there are problems plaguing the nation.  Rather, they believe the country is the problem.  They believe the United States is the great promoter of injustice.  This is because they think America is a flawed state; from its inception!
 
They believe that the United States is the greatest fomenter of evil in the world today.  They believe that so many of the world's injustices; poverty, famine, disease, and even the future decline in the health of the planet itself is to a great extent the result of the presence and actions of the United States.  They believe that because the United States has achieved a certain amount of stability and wealth, it must now give most of it up to the rest of the world. 
 
The people in this camp believe it is appropriate to suspend due process because of the many injustices the United States has itself perpetrated in the past.  
They believe in socialism, wealth distribution, and in the inherent evil of their opponents.  They believe that each and every one of you is responsible for the health of all those around you, and you should pay for it.  
 
They believe that every majority group is inherently hateful, or at least unjust, towards every minority.  For this reason, they claim others as being racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobes at will.
 
This group's flag bearers are Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joaquin Castro, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Mazie Hirono, and George Soros.
 
 
And there you have it; the two directions being offered to the American public.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen such a stark dichotomy between the two groups hoping to lead our country, and today, each group is asking you to help it take the nation in the direction it believes is better for the nation and the world.  Each is trying to convince you that theirs is the better way. 
 
The question you need to answer is which vision do you believe is better?  Your response is fundamentally important to our nation's future.
 
 
 
 
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 October 30, 2018, President Trump voiced his intent to end birthright citizenship through an executive order. To those on the left, his comment sounded outlandish and devoid of any attachment to reality.  To others, the comment was an expression of wishful thinking, or worse yet, a hollow political stunt.  
 
Indeed, the President's only defense of his claim when pressed was, "Now, they're saying that I can."  
 
Well, who is they?  And to whom are they saying it?
 
Immediately, reporters and politicians alike responded with claims of the plan's unconstitutionality.  On the same day that President Trump spoke of the idea, Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote that President Trump's claim was at odds with the legal consensus.  Liptak reached back to the testimony of then Head Counsel for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Walter Dellinger, before Congress in 1995 who said, "Because the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution, it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution."  Similarly, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said in an interview with "Larry Glover Live" on WVLK, "You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order."
 
But like so many other things in law, innovative approaches and ideas that are in fact allowable become so only because the idea is viewed under the scrutiny of a different prism.  This case, I believe, is no exception.  
 
Presidential Powers.
 
The powers of the President of the United States, and indeed the entirety of the executive branch, are defined in Article II of the Constitution of the United States.  The Framers made it perfectly clear in Article II, Section 3, that the President of the United States ". . . shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. . ." 
 
The mandate goes straight to the most elemental check upon the President, and indeed, the whole executive branch.  The President cannot create any new laws.  All the President has the power to do is make sure that statute passed by Congress, or authorities given to him by the Constitution, are carried out in a manner consistent with the statutes enacted by Congress and with the language contained within the Constitution.  
 
As a matter of fact, the question of whether the President has the authority to write new laws has already been reviewed by the Supreme Court and struck down.  In Clinton v. City of New York, U.S. (1998), the Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 giving the President the power to veto certain items in the budget if he so desired.  So strict was the interpretation of the prohibition upon the President to in any way alter a law presented to him or her by Congress, that even the mere alteration through a line-item veto was interpreted as giving the President the authority to amend the statute he was altering.  The power of amendment, the Court said, rested only with Congress, a signature feature of the Separation of Powers doctrine that colored the Constitution.  Any intrusion through amendment or line item veto by the executive was expressly prohibited. 
 
So clearly, the President, and all departments of the executive branch are bound to the charter of faithfully executing the laws of the United States and may not alter them.  
 
But interpreting the laws of the United States is an altogether different matter.  Both the executive branch and the President are continuously tasked with interpreting the laws passed by Congress.  Essentially, the President lacks any authority to do anything that either the Congress or the Constitution does not allow him to do.  But if Congress grants the executive the authority to carry out a particular task, then it is fundamental to the successful execution of that task that the President and the departments answerable to him interpret Congress's mandate.  
 
In certain areas, Congress has made perfectly clear what it is that they wish for the President or agencies to do. Elsewhere, Congress has not been specific, either because it purposely wished to give the authority of interpretation or policy design to the executive, or because it lacked the political will to pass the law inclusive of specific definitions or directions. 
 
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Language Regarding Birthright Citizenship.
 
In 1866, the country was reeling from the devastating effects of the Civil War.  The South lay in ruins.  The Democrat establishment inculcated in the southern states, although militarily defeated, was doing everything it could to maintain its old class and economic system. Although slavery had been outlawed and former slaves emancipated, southern Democrats were busy building roadblocks to the success of former slaves and African Americans in general. 
 
Yes, slavery was no longer an option, but southern Democrats still had the Dred Scott decision at their disposal. In the most offensive Supreme Court ruling in American history, the Court in Dred Scott held that black Americans were not citizens of the United States, and that even if a state had afforded the person citizenship, such an act did not concurrently grant American, or federal citizenship.  In other words, merely because an individual of African descent was a citizen of a certain state, he or she still would not be considered an American citizen.  The post-war Southern States, under Democrat hands, aimed to capitalize on that still governing opinion.
 
The Reconstructionist Congress immediately took to rectify that situation and repeal the Dred Scott opinion.  It would do this through a Constitutional Amendment.  Congress had already outlawed slavery by passing and ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  Now, it was hard at work at correcting this latest affront to former slaves by fashioning an amendment that would accomplish five things: 
1) clarify that citizenship of the United States supersedes state citizenship;
2) define who is a citizen of the United States; 
3) guarantee equal protection under the law to all citizens;
4) guarantee due process rights to all citizens; and
5) guarantee the same privileges and immunities to all citizens.  
 
The result of their efforts was the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, a rather voluminous addition addressing all the aforementioned issues.  Regarding who is recognized as a citizen of the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  
 
Notice that the Fourteenth Amendment does not state that all persons born in the United States are citizens, but rather, those who are born in the United States and who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
 
So, what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?
 
For that, we have information from debates and Supreme Court cases.  In the debates leading to the passage of the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, some senators agreed that the phrase essentially meant "subject to full and complete jurisdiction of the United States."  Consequently, the phrase was included to make sure that certain persons born in the United States would not be considered citizens. These included American Indians, foreign invaders, and foreign dignitaries, such that, for example, if a foreign dignitary were to find herself pregnant in the United States and gave birth to a baby on American soil, that child was not considered to be a citizen of the United States.  
 
The question of the citizenship of a baby who was born on American soil to someone who found herself in the United States illegally was never contemplated.  Clearly, upon interpreting the language and the intent of the addition of the clause, it is clear that such an individual would not be subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States and would likely not have been intended to be a citizen of the United States according to the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.  
 
For the contrary interpretation we would have to go to the few cases decided by the Supreme Court where the Court dealt with the language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, but whose circumstances were not identical to the questions posited by President Trump. 
 
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, U.S. (1898) was a case dealing with the citizenship of a child born in San Francisco to Chinese, non-citizen immigrants.  In that case, the Court ruled that the child was indeed a citizen of the United States. The stickler here is that the baby's parents, although non-citizens, had come to the United States and were residing within the United States, legally. 
 
Contrarily, the Court held in Elk v. Wilkins, U.S. (1884) that the children of American Indians were not automatically considered citizens of the United States because, even though they were born on U.S. soil, the parents, by virtue of belonging to an American Indian tribe had not subjected themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.  
 
There are cases dealing with government benefits where courts, even the Supreme Court, have decided that the children of illegal immigrants born on American soil are eligible for benefits because they are citizens of the United States, but in such cases the courts began their analyses under the assumption that these children were citizens.  More to the point, the Court has never decided whether birthright citizenship is absolute and immutable under the Constitution, or whether it is subject to regulatory oversight.  In other words, the question of whether Congress or the executive can interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in such a manner that clarifies the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thereby limit certain classes of individuals from being citizens has never been entertained by the Court. 
 
Congress Opens The Door To The President's Executive Order.
 
Whether the President has the authority to make a policy interpretation directly from the language in the Constitution of the United States is an interesting discussion, but our analysis does not have to reach that question because in point of fact, Congress passed a statute codifying the citizenship clause within the Fourteenth Amendment.  
 
The Immigration and Nationality Act passed by Congress in 1952 actually codifies the citizenship and naturalization provision of the Fourteenth Amendment in 8 U.S.C. §1401(a). It reads, "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; . . . "  However, in it Congress did notdefine the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  
 
Consequently, so long as Congress fails to define the meaning of the clause, it falls upon the executive or the President to do so.  Therein lies the invitation by Congress for the President to interpret eligibility for birthright citizenship born to a person illegally in the United States. Admittedly, the judiciary may also interpret that phrase, but it can only do so in a case or controversy with standing where the actual question of the meaning of the phrase is at play. Additionally, even if the judiciary interprets the meaning of the statutory language, a definition put forth by the executive or Congress will supersede the judiciary's definition.  
 
However, if the judiciary were to interpret the meaning of the phrase as it is used in the Constitution then only a constitutional amendment could overturn the decision, which represents yet another example of why our nation is well served by the passage of a legislative override provisionto a Supreme Court decision.
 
The Merits Of Ending Birthright Citizenship.
 
Having established that the President has the authority to end birthright citizenship by simply defining the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," should he?
 
I begin with the question of whether it should be done at all.  There are a number of arguments in favor of ending birthright citizenship. Perhaps the most compelling of these is that birthright citizenship serves as an incentive for illegal immigration. Unquestionably, many women would risk life or limb to have their children born in the United States just so that the baby would be a citizen of the United States.  The practice has many deleterious effects, not the least of which is increasing the number of American citizens with dual citizenship. Additionally, once the child is a citizen, it becomes much more difficult for authorities to deport the parents.  And finally, of course, the child born under these circumstances becomes the first link in the chain of migration that will naturally include his or her parents.
 
There are also real costs to illegal immigration.  Jon Feere, a policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies pointed out during his congressional hearing in 2015 that about 375,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States each year, or one in 10 births.  Additionally, 71% of illegal alien households with children make use of welfare benefits. The aggregate costs of these programs run into the billions of dollars each year.   And bear in mind that in the developed world, only the United States and Canada honor birthright citizenships.  
 
Who has the authority under the Constitution to end birthright citizenship?  Clearly, from our analysis, both Congress and the President have the authority to end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution. 
 
So who should do it?
 
Congress, of course!  Congress is where such a robust discussion should rightfully take place.  But if Congress does not or cannot, then the responsibility falls upon the President. 
 
If President Trump were to end birthright citizenship through an executive order, there is a strong likelihood that the Supreme Court will overrule him regardless of how the executive order is fashioned.  But if it does so based on a claim that the President lacks the authority to define a vague and previously undefined statutory clause, the Court will be glaringly guilty of two things.  First, it would be guilty of randomly and capriciously denying the President the authority to do something that is fundamental to his duties of faithfully executing the laws of the United States.  And second, the Supreme Court will be making a decision not on the inherent authorities granted to each branch of government as it should, but merely on its disdain towards the policy enacted, clearly a policy consideration outside of its own purview. 
 
The President is correct in asserting his authority to interpret a nebulous congressional statute, even if the result is the end of birthright citizenship.  At the very least, doing so will force Congress to have the debate it should have had decades 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.
 
The past two months have seen the formation of as many as four caravans of Central American citizens intent on walking to the United States in search of a new life.  The group, which initially numbered a few more than a hundred, swelled to over fourteen thousand according to some reports.  The sea of people has battled overwhelming heat, dehydration, poor nutrition, and exhaustion just to get the opportunity to cross the American border.  
 
We have heard much from media outlets about the source of their motivation.  The recited answer is that the evacuees are in search of better living conditions. They desire the job opportunities available in the United States that they will never find in their native homes of Honduras, Mexico, and Guatemala.  
 
We have also heard of the coordination and assistance provided by Pueblos Sin Fronteras, an organization indirectly funded by the likes of George Soros, in facilitating the transit of the migrants. And there have also been reports that countries like Venezuela have actually provided a conduit for the funds. 
 
But in point of fact, it must take more than just incredible funding to get people to undertake a greater than 1000 miles journey in the tropics without a guarantee of food and water and with no likelihood of returning.  The uncertain promise of opportunity is likely to be insufficient to motivate most. Even the despair in which they live may not be enough.
 
If these factors are insufficient to get someone to walk across Mexico to get to the United States, then what will?  An interesting article sheds light on the level of despair afflicting these individuals.  According to The Wall Street Journal, the real reason these people are fleeing Central America is because of gang violence. 
 
Over the past decade, particularly in places like El Salvador, an expansive network of extremely violent and destructive gangs have inculcated themselves into Central American society resulting in the destruction of its political and economic fabric.  
 
Two competing, highly violent factions, one being MS-13, and the other Barrio 18, have spread its tentacles throughout the area to prey upon neighborhood residents and intimidate them into submission.
 
As opposed to other gangs, Robbie Whelan of The Wall Street Journalexplains, these no longer feed off drug trafficking.  Instead, they extort money from area residents and businesses to the tune of $600,000 a month in the case of MS-13 alone.  
 
The result is the highest homicide rate in the world in El Salvador.  And Latin America, an area accounting for 8% of the world's population, contributes a third of the world's homicides. 
 
Most recognize the complexity and difficulty of the challenges affecting Central America, but in many cases it seems, the situation is truly one of life and death.  On the flip side, there's no reason to believe that many of those promoting evil within the region haven't hitched a ride with the caravan seeking to expand its reach.  
 
That is, of course, President Trump and our troops can stop them.
 
 
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.
 
It was a typical Halloween Day in Southwest Florida; a gentle breeze blew in from the west; temperatures were in the high seventies; and the sun shined everywhere.  Halloween days like these herald the arrival of great trick-or-treating weather in Florida as the sun sets and the temperatures dip into the low seventies.  
 
What could be better than trick-or-treating in paradise?  
 
For many, it was a Donald Trump rally.
 
Yup.  Donald Trump was coming to Fort Myers to speak at the Germain Arena in Estero, and thousands responded by ditching their candy and trotting over to watch President Trump speak.  
 
I was one of them.

​professionals.  All around us was the sound of vendors enthusiastically calling for folks to buy MAGA hats and T-shirts, and reminding us that cashlessness was not an impediment to purchasing power.  
 
But our walk would come to a precipitous stop about half a mile away from the stadium, as that's where the waiting (and the fretting over our chances of getting in) began. 
 
In front of us was a group of high school students, one of them a senior getting ready to study mechanical engineering, and the other a junior and a future electrical engineer.  They were excited to see the President and were exchanging ideas of how incredibly beneficial Trump had been to the economy, and to the prospects of them making money.  But when their conversation turned to Ben Shapiro that's when my wife chimed in, and that was it.  The two hours wait flew by.  
 
Within moments, the distinction of being last in line was dispelled, and soon I could no longer see the end of the line as it coursed behind me, seemingly endlessly.  
 
The Line Starts To Move.
 
For the next hour, the line only crept forward, but at four o'clock, the time the doors were scheduled to open, the sun-kissed crowd began making its way into the building.
 
Of course, we were so far away, there was no way we could tell that the doors had opened, but we knew something favorable was happening as the speed or our progress improved from a crawl to a slow walk. 

Want," and "Gonna Fly Now" all blared through the massive, concert sized speaker system in the parking lot.  And once we got to the parking lot, we were met with a giant jumbo screen playing messages and highlighting businesses.   And despite the numerous warnings for us not to hurt a protestor, not a one was seen.
 
Of course, the bad news for us and for our odds of getting in was that the long, but straight line back in the street had evolved into a Disney-styled, meandering queue that snaked its way around the parking lot before getting to its destination.  
 
But the turns gave us the opportunity to meet more people.  A professional couple attending their second Trump rally because the first one had been so awesome.  A somewhat crazy guy who had run for Florida governor and wouldn't let the rest of us forget about it.  A pair of retirees from Massachusetts grateful for the warm weather.  
 
And of course, police officers! 
 
Brave men and women, armed with guns, and shielded by their bullet-resistant vests.  Some of them wore shirts  labeled "BOMB UNIT" checked the discard packages, and OPENED ABANDONED WATER COOLERS WITHOUT CRINGING! 
 
I thank God they were there.
 
We Arrived!
 
After a few conversations, we were at the front door, emptying our pockets and walking through the metal detector.
 
The Germain Arena is a hockey stadium.  Yes, we play hockey in Florida, albeit indoors.  Upon entering it, we were given the choice of standing in the rink and closer to the President, or sitting at the bleachers.  We chose the latter, which placed us about two-thirds of the way back.
 
Once again, the people were amazing!  They were generally folks you just wanted to be with.  
 
I found myself sitting next to a military veteran who was making his sixth Trump rally, having attended one in Tampa, one in Melbourne, two in Sarasota, and one in Orlando.  He was so proud of our President and the support he was giving the military.  He could not wait to hear Trump speak again.
 
The President Takes The Stage. 
 
We sat for about two hours before the festivities began, and the National Anthem played.  Absolutely everyone stood proudly, honored the flag and strongly recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 
 
And then the President arrived! ​

The Press As The Enemy Of The People.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
During the past few days, I have heard some of the most unpalatable utterances from renowned, national news outlets. Following a week where a foolish and hateful idiot sent over ten bombs, (fake or real) to various Democrat leaders; where a demonic lunatic in Pittsburgh mauled down some of the most peaceful, loving people in our society; and where a man with a gun prevented another massacre from being perpetrated by an armed gunman, some in the press are making the case that these acts, unlinkable as they may be, are primarily due to the political utterances of the President of the United States.  
 
To these people facts have no bearing in the formulation of their opinion.  To them, if the perpetrator of the injustice worships the President, his actions are the fault of the President of the United States.  If, on the other hand, the perpetrator hates the President of the United States, his actions are still the President's fault.  And if there is no identifiable political slant to the perpetrator, the defender, or the victims the President is still equally to blame.
 
Make no mistake, the President of the United States can no more be blamed for the illegal and violent acts of a crazed lunatic than can my dog's mere existence.  
 
The President has fired back by once again calling the fake press the enemy of the people. I, for one, think the President has a point, as does a substantial portion of the electorate.
 
Let's start by acknowledging that calling out the press's hypocritical and reckless conduct is just as valid a political observation, when true, as any other; and perhaps even more necessary.  
 
In a panel discussion on CNN, Julia Ioffe of GQ Magazine actually said, "This President has radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did."  ISIS, the evil, vial, and murderous organization that almost radicalized a whole continent.  ISIS, the organization that owes its success at radicalizing hundreds of thousands of individuals to the passive and permissive posture of President Barack Obama.  ISIS, the organization whose radicalization consisted of justifying the decapitation of thousands and the capture and rape of countless women.  And ISIS, the organization whose existence was essentially terminated by the actions of President Trump.
 
That such patently and absurdly unjustifiable comments are allowed to fly without admonition from CNN nor sanction from GQ is utterly atrocious, yet the comments flow through the airwaves and the internet, decorated with CNN's and GQ's stamps of authenticity.
 
During the same weekend, Joe Scarborough said that for the President to have tweeted comments about baseball and his hair "was done intentionally to send a message to white nationalists; 'this doesn't bug me that much.'"  Again the comment represented a despicable, open, and wholly unsubstantiated attack, not just on the President's actions, but also on his intent.  What scintilla of evidence does Scarborough have that the President was sending a signal to anyone, much less white nationalists?  Of course, he has none.  The allegation was completely fabricated by one whose animus against the President of the United States is so intense he can't see straight.  And predictably, there was no correction from MSNBC.
 
And on Sunday, on MSNBC, Malcolm Nance said about the President, "He uses megaphones to tell these tribes that they belong to him, and this is leading to violence," a purely hysterical, hateful, and wholly unsubstantiated comment that was once again allowed to persist by a network without retort or correction.  
 
Then there's John Heilemann, who charged during an appearance on MSNBC, "The President is obviously a racist.  He's obviously a demagogue.  He obviously condones anti-Semitism. Stokes up nationalist hatred." (emphasis added)  Yet no president has shown greater support for Israel nor has done more to support Jewish rights and the Jewish Community than President Donald J. Trump.  
 
When outlandish charges such as these are recurrently allowed entry into the national forum under the guise of serious political discussion by news outlets that neither provide substantiation, reprimand, or correction the presence of an underlying biased, political agenda is revealed.  And when such a bias commands a greater priority than truth in reporting, the reporter or networks stop serving the needs of the people and start working against them.
 
Clearly, the press has an immeasurably important role to play in a democracy, and in particular, in the United States of America. That role is centered upon the delivery of information regarding the events of the day, inclusive of thoughtful, substantiated, and well-researched analysis.  Yes, the news is biased, but that is to be expected, as we are all biased. But we expect the press to be responsible and fair. 
 
Make no mistake, when the press is delivering stories and opinions on a national level with the primary purpose of undermining the President of the United States regardless of the truth of the matter asserted, it is acting against the interests of the people. When it spreads lies, or paints stories in a deceitful light so as to forward an institutionalized political agenda at the expense of the truth, it is acting against the interests of the people. When it purposefully conflates hyperbolic political rhetoric delivered during a campaign despite the office holder's actual performance demonstrating the contrary, it is acting against the interests of the people.   When the press stops acting as an objective deliverer of facts and instead acts as a propaganda machine, it acts against the interest of the people.  When the press allows its newsq programs to be used as platforms by political hacks to foment vitriol and lies without retort or correction from the network, it acts against the interests of the people.  And when a person or institution consistently and recurrently acts against the interest of the American people, it becomes the enemy of the people.
 
In either case, as demonstrated by its disgraceful performance this week, the disservice the press is presently providing our Republic and our democracy vastly outweighs its benefit.  It is clearly time for the press, as an institution, to reassess the job it is doing on behalf of the people of the United States.  If it does, and if it were to provide more objective and substantiated coverage of the day’s events, I am certain it would stop being viewed as an enemy of the people by nearly half the country and will reassert its position as the indispensible ally to our republic that it needs to be.  
 
 
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.
 
"The fastest way to find out another's true purpose is to call their bluff."
 
On Saturday, the Associated Press reported that thousands of members of the Central American caravan making their way to the United States rejected an offer by Mexican officials for shelter, medical attention, schooling, and jobs in exchange for seeking asylum in Mexico rather than proceeding to the United States. The response allegedly delivered via a vote sent a chilling message to Mexican and American officials.  In short, their answer was no, thank you. They wanted to continue to the United States
 
But why?
 
The naive answer is that the individuals traveling in the caravan are so enamored with life in the United States and the opportunities awaiting them that they will strike no compromise towards that end. But there are still another 1,000 miles arguing against them, the word that the United States will not allow them passage and the mobilization of American troops to back it up.  Any one of these arguments alone is sufficiently convincing to most, much less the compendium of the three.  Additionally, the conditions reports are that the conditions faced by the travelers are grueling.
 
Is it really plausible that the United States is so attractive to these individuals as to disallow the opportunity for any compromise?  A clue to the answer may lie with the agenda of the organizers of the exodus, Pueblos Sin Fronteras.  Their stated "Dream" is to "turndown border walls imposed by greed," while their website proudly displays images of individuals climbing over American borders walls.  
 
So, as the migrants turn down humanitarian offers for shelter and jobs one must ask, is their plight really one driven by the promise of economic opportunity, or is it something more sinister?  Is it, instead, the object of the manipulation of an organization's political agenda?
 
With any luck, the answer to these latter questions await the results of an FBI investigation.
 
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.
 
This week has witnessed the destructive and sinister actions of two deranged and evil men who sought to sow havoc and hatred upon others.  The first, of course, was the attempted (or feigned) mail bombings by an unstable individual in Miami targeting prominent Democrats.  The second is the vicious, senseless, and horrible mauling of Jews assembled within their own synagogue in Pittsburgh for the purposes of prayer, fellowship, and worship.  Obviously, neither of these events is in any way tolerable in a Republic or in American society.   And although there is, I expect, complete unanimity on this matter, the consensus breaks down with the attempt at identifying the root cause of our malady. 
 
Many explanations can be posited for the deterioration in the interactions between Americans we have recently witnessed.  Some blame the faster-paced society in which we live.  Others discuss video games and television violence.  Still others suggest that the issue lies in the vitriol with which politicians and reporters alike engage the public and each other.  And of course, the deceitful opportunists will go further and place the blame squarely on the President of the United States.   
 
In reality, the problem is much more elemental than this and vastly more ominous.  What we are witnessing is, quite simply, the latest manifestation of the eternal battle of good against evil where evil is winning.
 
The devastating consequences of a society’s abandonment of God have played out on numerous occasions.  God's destruction of His creation in response to widespread corruption, the Jews' struggles with their own moral frailties as they trekked across the desert in search of the Promised Land, the destruction of Sodom due to its wretchedness even before Lot's escape, Israel's suffering brought about by David's moral indiscretion are but a few examples of the inverse relationship between destruction and famine and closeness to God. 
 
But the association is not merely a physical one. Patrick Henry was correct when he wrote that religion "hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society."  It was an insight shared by Congress in its creation of the Northwest Ordinance prompting it to include the words in Article 3 of its charter, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
 
Unfortunately, the agenda-driven courts bent on sealing any porousness in the wall of separation between church and state described by Thomas Jefferson, abandoned those fundamental concepts.  And the results, similar to the countless examples painted for us in the Bible, have been nothing short of cataclysmic.  In the same time since the courts stripped our schools of prayer, the United States has seen the dissolution of its relationship to God, a deterioration in the collective faith of its citizens, and an acceleration in the hostility, hatred, and overall mayhem taking place within its borders.
 
Make no mistake about it, what we are witnessing is no less a complete destruction of a society than the evaporation of Sodom.  Only this time the destruction is much more foundational than a physical one.  We are witnessing the destruction of a nation's soul, and those pointing to Donald Trump, or the Republicans, or social media, or anything short of our devolving devotion to God is losing sight of the real culprit.  The culprit is evil itself, and the only path to salvation lies in following the mandates of a Judeo-Christian God.  
 
 
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.
 
Can a monarch really make whatever law he or she wants?  If a person is living in a monarchy, does he or she have any right to resist an unjust law? One could argue that the person does not, since after all, in a monarchy every inhabitant is a subject of the king and all rights proceed from him.  
 
Such was the question posed to me in a recent discussion about Saudi Arabia and its monarchical state.  In point of fact, though, monarchs do NOT have the authority to set whatever laws they desire.  In fact, if monarchs possessed unlimited authority over its subjects, there would be no objective defense to the Declaration of Independence or for the separation of the United States from England.  If the power of a monarch had truly been all-pervasive, then King George III would have been free to rule England and the colonies in whatever manner he wished.  There would have been no parliament, and there certainly would have been no Magna Carta.
 
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."  The term "Governments" in the Declaration was all-inclusive and captured monarchies.
 
Moreover, he wrote, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (emphasis added)
 
If monarchs were able to do whatever they wished, none of the concepts espoused by Jefferson and battled for by our Founders would hold true.  
 
The concept that monarchs had restrictions placed upon their authority dates back to the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.  Both men agreed that even in a monarchy, the scope of a monarch's authority was limited.
 
To be sure, monarchs were placed on the thrown by God, but their call was to take care of His creation on earth and to act as a steward.  The moment monarchs abused their power (such as by killing a journalist without affording him any due process), the monarch breached his contract and would be subject to removal.  One difference between the beliefs espoused by the two men is that Augustine said the removal of a rogue monarch should be effected through prayer while Aquinas actually allowed for the forceful overthrow of the man.  
 
The bottom line is this: no nation, including a monarchy may create laws that allow it to dismiss the rights of its citizens.  Doing so goes against the basic understanding of government in western culture and the basic precepts of natural law.  The question then naturally is, do these same concepts apply to an Islamic state practicing not under natural law, but under Sharia law?  The answer to that question awaits the actions of Saudi Arabia.
 
 
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.
 
If you're looking for a doctor to prescribe medical marijuana, you might find one in Florida.  But if you want a doctor to prescribe a visit to the Braer site, a wade into an outdoor celebration of some kind, or even a prescription to touch the sea and feel the texture of the water, then your doctor is in Scotland.  
 
Yes, Scottish physicians have now been authorized to prescribe nature!  The benefits of "nature" on mental and physical health have long been espoused. Conditions such as hypertension, depression, pain control, and immune disorders have been found to benefit from outdoor explorations and attempts at relaxation.  
 
So, how can you possibly prescribe nature?  
 
You can't take it.  You can't swallow it.  You definitely can't administer it rectally (or so I think).  So how can you prescribe it?  
 
The fact is you can't.  You can only recommend that a patient undergo outdoor activities.  I suppose you can make recommendations for particular activities at certain locations and seasons, but calling those recommendations a prescription in need of authorization flies in the face of the definition of the word "prescription" and in the face of. . . well. . . nature!  
 
But here's the overarching question and the point that really struck me about this story: if you can't take it home with you, if you can't buy it, if you can't possess it, then why would a health care provider need authorization to prescribe it?  The concept defies credulity, doesn't it?
 
Well that's exactly what happened in Scotland!  The Health Board for Shetland, Scotland, just authorized prescribing nature.  If it doesn't alarm you that a governmental organization would have such overwhelming control of your health care that it can decide when your doctor may or may not prescribe something as all pervasive as nature, then I don't know what will.
 
Whatever you do this November, fight for your health care.  Don't let your government take control of it.  It just might decide that you need authorization just to access nature. 
 
 
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.
  
Mine is a love-hate relationship with Geraldo Rivera.  I find him comical and light-hearted most of the time.  But then he goes off and says the stupidest things; so dumb in fact that it makes Juan Williams look professorial.  
 
In particular, Geraldo Rivera tends to fall off the deep end when he speaks of immigration, and yesterday was no exception.  In an article expressing his proposal at resolving the immigration crisis, Geraldo wrote, "In exchange for leniency and a path to citizenship for long-time undocumented residents already in this country--who were brought to the U.S. as children by their parents--pro-immigration advocates, like me, should announce our support for President Trump’s border wall.  It will help restore order along the southern border, and mitigate the hysteria currently gripping the national immigration debate and tainting the mid-term elections."
 
Never mind that the position of immigration advocates regarding the President of the United States has no bearing on the state of affairs in Central America; the notion that continued opposition to President Trump's border wall will have any effect on his resolve to pursue it is also ill-contrived.  Moreover, it is increasingly clear to most Americans that advocating for an open border is an absurd position that only serves to work against the interests of the United States and its citizens.  
 
But included in Geraldo's article is a statement that crosses the border between political discourse and unsubstantiated and discriminatory speech.  Specifically, Geraldo said, "It is, in my opinion, fear of our nation being over-run by poor, hungry, brown people in sufficient numbers to change our basic national character, which motivates most critics of this caravan and, more broadly, illegal immigration."
 
I can confidently speak not only for my position, but also for that of anyone I have spoken to regarding border protection, and I have been discussing this issue a heck of a lot, that in absolutely no case has anyone factored the color of one's skin or the nationality of those crossing illegally in the analysis of immigration.  Quite the opposite; the only topics that keep coming up are our national sovereignty, our economy, and our national security.  And for me, the most important of these is our national sovereignty.  
 
So, in response, let me tell share with you my proposal on how to address this issue.  
 
First, the necessity of building the wall, at this point, is a foregone conclusion.  With the chaos we are witnessing to the south of us, there is no valid argument against it to be made.  Build the wall, and build it now!
 
Second, the more immediate question is what to do about the thousands of individuals who are heading to our southern border at this moment.  Here, I think the United States is making a big mistake in playing defense.  Like the prevent defense in football, the United States is sitting at the end zone waiting for its opponent to arrive in the hope that once it gets there it will be able to stop it.  
 
I say the United States needs to go on offense. The United States needs to coordinate an affirmative effort with Mexico to dissuade the "dissidents" from proceeding.  The effort should begin with the airdropping of leaflets, in Spanish, letting the migrants know that they are continuing their journey at their own peril and that if they should choose to continue, they will be stopped, by force if necessary. Helicopters would deliver the same message using megaphones, urging them to turn back.  Inherent in this message is the offer to have those wishing to turn back transported to their home country, free of charge.
 
Next, in a coordinated exercise with Mexico, the United States should begin crowd disbursement activities.  This will help to further diminish the size of the crowd eventually confronting our officers at the border.  Further, the topic of forcibly repatriating those who remain while still in Mexico should also be discussed with Mexican officials.  If amenable, the United States should engage with Mexico in joint exercises accomplishing this end.
 
Those arriving at the border despite all these civil obstacles are more likely than not eager to engage in nefarious activities. These will be engaged, forcefully if necessary, at the border, and repelled.  
 
Having regained control in the short run, and while building the wall, the United States would then have to evaluate the issues that are allowing for an appetite for emigration in the first place. We already know these include the many economic and governmental challenges plaguing Central American countries.  The United States should immediately begin a mutually beneficial, long-term strategy aimed at reforming Central America with the goal of improving living conditions while benefiting the American economy and trade.  Unquestionably, if these nations partner up, the results can be lucrative for each; and for their citizens.
 
As opposed to empty promises of support for the President, this plan will offer short-term control and long-term stability making it much more worthy of pursuit.  

And that, Geraldo, is an actual proposal.
 
 
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.
 
 
What are you willing to do to defeat evil? Would you have the courage to fight it?
 
It was December 1938, when Nicholas Winton got the call from his friend, Martin Blake.  Nicholas was preparing to go skiing in Switzerland, but Martin had other plans for him.  Martin wanted Winton to come to Prague and join him in caring for some refugees.  
 
Nicholas complied.
 
Prague had become a refuge, albeit temporary, for displaced Jews. Earlier in 1938, Europe had reached the Munich Agreement resulting in the annexation of Sudetenland by Germany.
 
Sudetenland was a province in the northwest section of Czechoslovakia.  Its transfer to Germany was monumental, as it essentially signaled the end of the defenses for Czechoslovakia.  That Czechoslovakia would soon be in the hands of the Nazis became a foregone conclusion.
  
Worse, on November 8-9, the Germans led a pogrom against Jews living in Nazi terroitory.  In all, thousands of Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps.  Hundreds of Jewish business and synagogues were destroyed.  In fact, the assault upon the Jews that November came to be known as Kristallnacht, or the night of the broken glass, because of the destruction that took place.  
 
Whatever fears the Jews may have had prior to that horrible night, it was immediately intensified.  Countless Jews evacuated for safer destinations seeking an escape from the nightmare that was to come.  
 
This was the reality that confronted Nicholas when he arrived in Prague that December. But Nicholas didn't decide to go home, nor did he succumb to the futility of his efforts.  Instead, he made it his mission to get the Jewish children out of Czechoslovakia.  
 
Indeed, there was already such a program at work in Europe.  It was called Operation Kindertransport, but it did not include Czechoslovakia.  Nicholas would have to do it on his own.  
 
First, Nicholas set up an organization called The British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia, Children's Sector.  Then he began networking with friends in England and with British authorities in the hopes of being able to get the children to safety.  After much effort, he finally obtained an agreement from England that the children would be allowed to relocate if there were an accepting family, and they paid a 50-pound fee.
 
Winton's next hurdle was administrative. 
 
Although Winton was operating under great haste, his compatriots in England were not, as the country was still in denial of an impending war.  It would be March 1939, before Nicholas would arrange for the first group of children to leave Prague by plane.  Later, the evacuations would take place by train, and with each trip, Winton would document the names of the children and the families that had agreed to receive them.  
 
In all, Winton rescued 669 children.  But the ones he remembers the most were the 250 that were loaded on a train on September 1, 1939, the same day World War II began.  On that day, the Czechoslovakian borders were sealed.  The children aboard that train never made it to safety.  As a matter of fact, they were never heard from again.  Later, Winton would reflect that he was forever haunted by the memory and fate of those kids. 
 
After the war, nothing was heard about Winton's rescue efforts, certainly not from Winton himself.  But in 1988, his wife found his notes hidden in their attic.  Grete Winton gave the notes to a Holocaust historian who chased down the 669 children whose names were inscribed in the book.  She found 80 of them. 
 
Later that year, Winton was unsuspectingly taken to the studio of a British biographical television program named That's Life.  Unbeknownst to him, the show would be about his own life.  Even more amazingly, in the room were 24 of the 80 identified children. 
 
Ostensibly surrounded by complete strangers, at one point in the presentation, Winton heard the hostess ask,  "Is there anyone in our audience tonight who owes their life to Nicholas Winton? If so, could you stand up please?"
 
The first six rows of people stood.  
 ​

 Winton would be knighted on December 31, 2002, and would die in his sleep on July 1, 2015.  On his finger, he wore a ring that with a phrase from the Talmud: "Save one life, save the world."
 
Sir Nicholas Winton stared at the face of evil and fought back.  His life, unknown to many, would forever serve as a testament to self-sacrifice and unwavering devotion to others. 
 
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.