Saturday, May 25, 2019


May 23, 2019, 1:24pm – Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq.

Announced Orwellian Censorship by Facebook against Churches holding to an official traditional Biblical worldview of marriage, sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity and THEIR LEADERS (Meaning the private pages of ministers on the platform). It is critical to note that COMMUNICATION AND/OR PROMOTION of the proscribed ideology IS NOT NECESSARY. According to the text of the policy standards, you simply need HOLD TO THE VIEW to be guilty of the Facebook delineated “Thought crime”.

The following COMMUNITY STANDARDS were JUST RECEIVED FROM FACEBOOK, May 23, 2019 [Relevant sections]. Below are direct quotations (word-for-word) from the message we just received from Facebook this morning:

We do not allow the following people (living or deceased) or groups to maintain a presence (for example, have an account, Page, Group) on our platform:

Hate organizations and their leaders and prominent members

        A hate organization is defined as:

Any association of three or more people that is organized under a name, sign, or symbol and that HAS AN IDEOLOGY, STATEMENTS, or physical actions that attack individuals based on characteristics, including race, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexual orientation, serious disease or disability.

…Tier 2 attacks, which target a person or group of people who share any of the above-listed characteristics, where attack is defined as,

        Statements of inferiority or an image implying a person’s or a Group’s physical, mental, or MORAL DEFICIENCY.” 

      More than ever before the Church of Jesus Christ needs to unite in prayer. This is becoming quite the Daniel moment.



On May 17, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act by a vote of 236-173, including multiple Republican Defections. We are now in SERIOUS DANGER of this proposal actually becoming law and devastating hard earned religious freedom in this country.


Here are the facts: Section 3 of the newly proposed “Equlity Act” (“EA”) addresses “Public Accommodations” and directly proposes to change 42 U.S. Code §20001 which establishes Federal Prohibitions against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.

The Equality Act proposes the following changes to Federal Law:

In Subsection (a), the statute presently reads,

PRESENT LAW: “(a) Equal access. All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

EA changes it to read as follows (altered sections are in caps not used in proposed law):

PROPOSED CHANGE (EA): “(a) Equal access. All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, SEX (INCLUDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY) or national origin.”

The 42 U.S. Code §20001 then goes on to define the places affected by the law, or where the law would be applicable [only relevant portion is referenced below].

PRESENT LAW: (b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments. Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment;”

PROPOSED CHANGE (EA), only addresses the Subsection (3) above by changing it to NOW read:

“(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of OR ESTABLISHMENT THAT PROVIDES EXHIBITION, ENTERTAINMENT, RECREATION, EXERCISE, AMUSEMENT, GATHERING, OR DISPLAY;”

EA specifically targets “youth service providers” as places of “public accommodation” where LGBT people cannot be discriminated against in term of their full and unencumbered participation. Pursuant to State v. S.B. (N.J., 2017), a case involving an Assemblies of God Church in New Jersey, the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey determined churches to fall under the category of “youth service providers”. Should EA become law, it can be successfully argued that a church may not discriminate in terms of being required to allow transgendered people to fully participate in the church’s ministries and other functions, specifically in any of its youth programs.

STATE LAWS ARE EMASCULATED: The act expressly invokes the 14th Amendment making it applicable to every state as well as to private actors within that state. The Equality Act states –

“Federal courts have widely recognized that, in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress validly invoked its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide a full range of remedies in response to persistent, widespread, and pervasive discrimination by BOTH PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENT ACTORS.”

It also invokes Commerce Clause violations when referring to any manner of discrimination against an LGBT person. This would allow it to supersede and infringe on State sovereignty by disallowing any defense to a EA law violation based on contrary State law.

ALL RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS ARE ELIMINATED: The EA specifically disallows any legal protection based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. This new proposed law GUARANTEES that people will not be allowed to claim an exception based on deeply held religious beliefs. This is what the Equality Act actually says:

‘‘The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) SHALL NOT PROVIDE a CLAIM concerning, or A DEFENSE to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.’’.

The Equality Act was skillfully and meticulously legally drafted to be weaponized against the Church. This is  its primary purpose.

Monday, March 18, 2019


By Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq.

How about the fact that Child Protective Services found this action to be both perfectly legal and not in any manner endangering to the child (physically or psychologically)? The goal could not be clearer - the sexualization and sexual exploitation of our children.


By Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq. 

Not to long ago, 10-year-old Canadian boy Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden was featured in a photo with the Season 7 winner of "RuPaul's Drag Race," Violet Chachki. In the shocking photo, Violet is wearing nothing but a pair of heels and a small piece of fabric covering his genitals, as seen in the screenshot below. 

So this is now acceptable behavior? Parents can allow their small children to engage in these sexually suggestive photo shoots? I am the father of two beautiful girls and simply cannot believe that parents are not freaking out right about now all over the country when seeing images like this one. 

This is the kind of thing that the LGB-T lobby is now trying to shove down society's collective throats, as young public school children all around the country (including New Jersey) are being indoctrinated into celebrating the LGB-T lifestyle as morally virtuous, despite their family’s objections arising from their deeply held religious beliefs. 

To our collective shame as a country, this image is likely marginally legal when using the 6 criteria Dost Test because it only meets 2 of the 6 standards used by the test to establish what is a pornographic image. This, of course, does not make it any less morally reprehensible. 

The image arguably meets these 2 of the 6 criterias outlined in the Dost Test:
5. Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
6. Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

Though shocking and highly troubling, I'm using the full image in our blog in the hope that it will help to stir up the moral outrage and opprobrium the image and the parents of this child deserve. 

Monday, February 25, 2019


Nay votes on today's Anti-Infanticide Sasse Bill - Senate Bill S.311
ONLY THREE DEMOCRATS voted for life and human decency. All other Democrats voted to refuse medical assistance to critically ill dying babies.
The apostle Paul wouldn’t have it. Publicly stripped, beaten with rods and then severely flogged, he was thrown into an “inner prison” where his feet were placed in the stocks having been denied his rights as a Roman Citizen. After the abuse, they tried to get rid of him quietly – through the back door. Paul wouldn’t have it. He made it a point to publicly expose their unacceptable, illegal behavior by forcing the magistrates to fess up to their crimes, demanding they escort him out personally.
I have never taken any partisan position in the past. My aim has always been and remains to represent Christ and Christ alone. I draw the line when it comes to killing babies born alive. These cowards masquerading as politicians who care for our lives will not be allowed to secretly walk out the back door today.
This bill was simple. It condemned infanticide and DEMANDED medical treatment for surviving victims – innocent babies BORN ALIVE but NEEDING emergency medical help to have a fighting chance at life. I’ve placed the TEXT OF THE ACTUAL BILL for the skeptics reading this blog below so there is no question as to the truth of what I'm saying here. No back-peddling. No denying or squirming out of culpability.
Anyone voting against this bill has compromised their morality and basic humanity to an unconscionable degree. Their actions are inhuman, supporting horrific acts against the most vulnerable human life that they would likely never condone be done to dogs. By voting Nay, these politicians have voted to allow living human beings needing emergency medical intervention to be abandoned while their cries are ignored as they are heartlessly allowed to die.
Only these three (3) Democrats decided to WALK AWAY from their party’s macabre position promoting infanticide and voted on the side of life and human decency. They should be lauded for their brave action in this matter in light of anticipated opprobrium they will receive from their Democrat peers:
Bob Casey (D-PA), Yea
Doug Jones (D-AL), Yea
Joe Manchin (D-WV), Yea
The following Republicans TURNED THEIR BACKS on life, refusing or neglecting to vote to protect innocent life and humanity. Though we still would not have had enough votes to pass the legislation with only 56 votes, Republicans would at least have spoken with a unified voice. These Republicans should NEVER hold public office:
Cramer (R-ND), Not Voting
Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting
Scott (R-SC), Not Voting
ALL OTHER DEMOCRATS voted to support abandoning innocent, hurting, human beings to their tragic deaths, joined by the following heartless independents who also are not fit for office:
Angus Stanley King (I-ME), Nay
Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Nay

*****[Text of Bill]******
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
January 31, 2019
Mr. Sasse (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Braun, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lankford, Mr.McConnell, Mr. Moran, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Portman, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Romney, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Wicker, Mr.Young, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Sullivan) introduced the following bill; ‘
which was read the first time February 4, 2019
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.
Congress finds the following:
(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.
(a) Requirements Pertaining To Born-Alive Abortion Survivors.—Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:
Ҥ 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors
“(a) Requirements For Health Care Practitioners.—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive:
(1) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—
“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and
“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.
(2) MANDATORY REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS.—A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.
(b) Penalties.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) INTENTIONAL KILLING OF CHILD BORN ALIVE.—Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(c) Bar To Prosecution.—The mother of a child born alive described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted for a violation of this section, an attempt to violate this section, a conspiracy to violate this section, or an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a violation.
(d) Civil Remedies.
(1) CIVIL ACTION BY A WOMAN ON WHOM AN ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—If a child is born alive and there is a violation of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate relief.
(2) APPROPRIATE RELIEF.—Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—
“(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of subsection (a);
“(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the abortion or attempted abortion; and
(C) punitive damages.
(3) ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR PLAINTIFF.—The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.
(4) ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR DEFENDANT.—If a defendant in a civil action under this subsection prevails and the court finds that the plaintiff’s suit was frivolous, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.
(e) Definitions.—In this section the following definitions apply:
(1) ABORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device—
“(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or
“(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than—
“(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or
“(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
(2) ATTEMPT.—The term ‘attempt’, with respect to an abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an abortion.
(3) BORN ALIVE.—The term ‘born alive’ has the meaning given that term in section 8 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’).”.
(b) Conforming Amendments.—
(1) The table of sections for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.”.
(2) The chapter heading for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS” and inserting “ABORTIONS”.
(3) The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to chapter 74 and inserting the following:
• “74. Abortion 1531”.
This Act shall take effect one day after the date of enactment.
60 Votes Required: Vote – Yeas 53, Nays 44, Not Voting 3
(Good) Democrats voting Yea:
Bob Casey (D-PA), Yea
Doug Jones (D-AL), Yea
Joe Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Republican Not Voting:
Cramer (R-ND), Not Voting
Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting
Scott (R-SC), Not Voting
Non-Democrat Nays:
King (I-ME), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay