William Del Pilar

San Diego County Board of Supervisors Turns Blue

Nov 232020

A conservative Latino’s view on politics…

Upon entering local politics in 2015, I learned the San Diego County Republican Party’s (SDCRP) one of California’s most successful! It’s where Republicans thrive, with the board of supervisors showcasing our dominance since the 1990s. Unsurprisingly, that’s come to a crashing end!

Reading the San Diego News Desk article, “Democrat Victories in San Diego Spell Troubling Future,” made me think about current supervisor Kristin Gaspar’s rout. My friends, there’s no doubt this was a beat down!

The Democratic Party taking the board of supervisors’ district three, and district one races, along with Nathan Fletcher’s (D) 2016 mugging of former San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis (R) in district four, gives them a 3-2 majority.

This loss by the Grand Old Party (GOP) is a culmination of at least a decade of Democratic Party dominance and Republican Party ineptitude throughout the state!

What’s worse? Gaspar was a rising political star. Now a veteran, party elder, and leader. Yet, that wasn’t enough to unite everyone – party, grassroots, and candidate – to thrust her to victory.

Reality vs. Fantasy

SDCRP leadership always treats me well. I have great respect for them as individuals and fellow Republicans. Still, something must change – we repeatedly lose! Politics is an industry that’s more cutthroat than any business. It’s an industry of scheming and despicability to an exponential degree. The SDCRP has no answer to counter what’s happening.

San Diego’s failed politics are now out in the open versus the fantasy we’re the model for the rest of the state.
A Democratic Party “blue wave” in San Diego County is ongoing. It’s massive and comprises the last two election cycles with no end in sight.
The situation’s grim because we’re so deep in losses – county and statewide. It’ll take more than a generation to overcome.

Success in politics comes through winning elections. In that, the CAGOP and SDCRP are failures. That’s not a personal or spiteful comment, but a fact.

It’s not only local leadership that’s failed. We must rid ourselves of current state leadership and ineffectual county chairs. Also, consultants, whose only goal is to make a buck versus helping their candidates win. Until we do this, we won’t move forward!

Why We Lose: CAGOP Template to Failure

In 2016, local leadership – establishment and grassroots – told me:

it’s the Republican Party’s job to get Republicans to the polls.
It’s the candidate’s job to go out and find votes among any non-republican out there.
Registration drives are nonexistent. Expanding and recruiting the Republican Party base is no longer a goal.

Leadership appears to have no qualms with this template. They view it as one that creates responsibility with accountability. Yet, grassroots aren’t on board, dealing with complete frustration and powerlessness.

This model destroys us from within and creates losses up and down the state with no end in sight.

Watching the “establishment” dismantle and destroy local grassroots to their detriment? Beyond comprehension.

The California Republican Party (@CAGOP) focus is not a robust grassroots infrastructure. Rather, technology and media (mailers, later social media). I’m simplifying. Yet, the CAGOP infrastructure to victory has become a template, ignoring foundational politics for a consultant’s takeover of campaigns.

All this is to the disadvantage of candidates. But with history giving us a decade of data, they should know better.

CAGOP Winning Template – The Reality

The Republican Party’s template to win is a complete and utter failure with defeat after defeat. Sure, we earn a victory here or there, but nothing more. Yet, leadership shows no will to change, and candidates show no resolve to do what’s needed to win – instead, allowing consultants to lead their campaign toward defeat.

We’ve gone from a prosperous red to a deep blue state – led by a hybrid socialist-Democratic entity that looks more and more like serfdom. With abuses from the executive, legislature, activists, and local party leadership.

Why We Lose: No Unity

Upon hearing this winning formula, my immediate thought, “We not only lose, but we lose all the time!” It’s obvious; we lack unity!

The union of candidate, party, and grassroots are a necessity to win.

The SDCRP and Kristin Gaspar failed to follow basic political fundamentals. In contrast, Democrats understand the importance of grassroots working with party leadership and the candidate.

Democrats abused belief of a “greater good” enables leftists to win – over and over. The Democratic Party understands the power of “the will of the people.” The Republican Party does not.

Why We Lose: Burp and Chirp Grassroots

Are you wondering what the term “burp and chirp” means? It’s a fitting term, and it was a grassroots activist from who I first heard it.

Most groups meet once a month – coming together with like-minded souls. Ready to hear conservative speakers talk about our beliefs and ideology.

Here’s what happens.

Individuals show up and order their meals. Eat, and enjoy catching up with fellow conservatives.
Listen to a conservative speaker. When done, he or she pushes their t-shirts, books, etc.
The meeting closes on a high note. There’s optimism because righteousness will overcome hate.
There’s rarely, if ever, a call to action.
Individuals go back home and do no volunteering to help a candidate or cause.
They then “rinse and repeat” this process.

That’s the grassroots we have – at least in San Diego County, but we can surmise that’s up and down the state.

Why We Lose: Weak Grassroots

Our grassroots are lacking. Most local groups are “burp and chirp,” with activists seeking popularity, not results. There are others, but an easy example is the North County Conservatives.

They care more about complaining than helping candidates.
There’re too many coaches and not enough players.
They lack youth and a willingness to find them.
They’re absence of diversity.
Activists care more about “selfies” and popularity than helping a candidate win.

All this creates problems that result in losing, allowing the Democratic Party to take over a SDCRP.

2016: Foreshadowing Difficult 2020 Re-Election

In 2016, Gaspar battled a very flawed Democratic candidate in incumbent Dave Roberts. Roberts had various accusations ranging from:

hostile work environment.
Retaliating against an employee.
Misuse of county resources.
Employee favoritism.

There were other issues, yet Gaspar almost lost. Winning by a scant 50.23% to 49.67%. A difference of 1,272 votes!

Gaspar nearly lost a race in 2016 that should’ve been a blowout, shows a united and robust Democrat base. But part of that’s because they only hear one side of the story.

Again, Republican candidates rarely venture into Democratic strongholds. They don’t speak, hold rallies or do town halls. The signs were there in 2016 with many races. Her loss shows she ignored the data, or the strategies and tactics used were inadequate.

Reasons for Gaspar’s Beating

Gaspar didn’t pursue non-Republican voters to sell herself. She only went to the predictable watering holes.
There was a lack of cooperation with the party and grassroots to reach into non-Republican strongholds.
She abandoned constituents and donors with a hopeless run for Congress. Likely losing her grassroots and donor support.
Her political values, like the Second Amendment, don’t always align with conservative values.
Gaspar’s 2016 primary win came by a vast, “establishment” war chest. Defeating the grassroots candidate left a lingering resentment toward her.
Gaspar’s a divisive candidate, trying to work both sides of the aisle yet appealing to none.

This race is a repeat of the Dumanis loss last cycle. The answer’s obvious. Democrats outnumber Republicans, and that will grow under the current CAGOP policy. A diminishing Republican voter base means we must take our values to non-Republicans!

We’re not doing this; thus, we’re not growing the base to win. We’re our own worst enemies!

Truth? We Can’t Even Compete!

There’re approximately 7,500 ballots left to count in San Diego County. Gaspar’s flogging is about 50,000 votes, which equals a 16% loss. It wasn’t even close!

It’s significant because Dumanis’ assault by Fletcher in 2016 showed Gaspar what they would face. Dumanis lost district four by 34.8% and about 74,000 votes. Party leadership was in early denial but realized the race’s reality as it went on. Confirming what we already knew – the numbers and Dumanis’ strategy and tactics never added up.

We must ask if either the SDCRP or Gaspar didn’t consider or care to realize the reason for Dumanis’ loss. To overcome the future, you study the past. It was clear the lack of reaching out to non-Republican voters never was a serious strategy. I know – that sounds crazy, but it’s true!

Don’t forget; #CAGOP strategy believes a grassroots infrastructure is no longer necessary. Gaspar’s loss continues to show we’re not even competing in what were once GOP bastions.

Routs will continue. Until we determine as party, candidates, and grassroots – reaching out to non-Republican voters is the only path to victory. By not doing that, it’s the primary reason we can’t even compete, much less win!

Not Learning From Past Failures

The SDCRP should’ve seen this coming and prepared. They knew what the numbers were once term limits became law. Yet did nothing to prepare for these uphill battles. Instead, using strategies and tactics from past cycles of failure.

Gaspar should’ve taken what made her a successful businesswoman into the campaign. Instead, she accepted the CAGOP’s flawed policies. Policies that only help those in the system – consultants.

Results of Loss = Massive New Perpetuity Programs

Our board of supervisors is a rarity in politics today. It’s fiscally sound with billions in reserves, allowing us to keep a high credit score. This score enables funding during emergencies such as wildfires, homelessness, or anything else.

COVID-19 will be the excuse that begins depleting these reserves.

Billions will disappear. Our credit rating will sink like a rock. We’ll lack the funds during emergencies and go in the red as Democrats put in new programs. They’ll tout them as temporary. Yet, they know full well, once started, they’ll continue in perpetuity.

CAGOP Still Refuses to Learn Basics

From local to statewide, we must realize, it’s not only money, but a base infrastructure must be in place to win – one composed of ready-to-move, savvy, and policy educated volunteers. You don’t build an infrastructure overnight, but we must start now or repeat a losing cycle!

Without a vibrant volunteer labor force, combined with candidates promoting proven conservative values and policies, losses will continue.

Losing the board of supervisors falls on party leadership and flawed candidates. San Diego County’s transformation from deep red to a blue takeover is now complete.

The Empire Strikes Back: CAGOP Remains Center-Left with Jessica Patterson

William Del Pilar 6 Responses »

Mar 022019

Note from Aaron F Park, I am proud to have William Del Pilar as a contributor. I do not control what he writes and he has editor access to Right on Daily. Please enjoy his point of view and leave your thoughts in the comment section.

A conservative Latino’s view on politics…

If your happy with the California Republican Party (CAGOP) and wanted the continued success of the worst beatdown in CAGOP history, your candidate was center-left Republican Jessica Patterson. Handpicked by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, she’s to be his marionette to his puppet master and continue the same leadership we’ve had since 2010. Conservatives felt after the 2018 massacre, leadership could change. Well, “The Empire Strikes Back” as Patterson won on the first ballot, easily defeating two conservatives.

Albert Einstein said to define insanity is to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results. I don’t believe the CAGOP did this expecting different results. Rather, current leadership believes we must go center-left to compete against Democrats even if that means higher taxes and bigger government. Perhaps they believe the state’s lost and look only to support McCarthy and his focus on congressional races.

CAGOP CHAIR RESULTS (1,192 votes)

Jessica Patterson, 651 votes – 54.6 percent
Travis Allen, 366 votes – 30.7 percent
Steve Frank, 175 votes – 14.7 percent

THE ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT

Both the establishment and conservative grass roots look up to Harmeet Dhillon, a former vice chair and current National Committee representative. She’s taken the fight straight to Democrats by taking the institutions of education and technology to court for attacking or firing conservatives. Many believe, as I do, she would’ve probably taken 95 percent of the vote had she chosen to run for chair. That said, I found it comical but expected when she introduced Patterson and stated in so many words that she chose to run a “positive” campaign, implying the other candidates did not. Comical because I knew someone from the Patterson camp would say that.

The Establishment consistently tells us to honor Ronald Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment” that states, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” The proverb of, “do as I say, not as I do,” comes to mind. Case in point: immediately following Dhillon’s introduction stating Patterson ran a clean campaign, a well-known Patterson supporter, speaking on her nomination attacked Allen. Adding to that, the night before, Patterson’s camp slipped into the delegate’s hotel rooms, a hit piece against him. Oh, the hypocrisy my friends, the hypocrisy!

THE SEVERE CONSERVATIVE

Patterson’s history had her supporting “Cap and Trade” Republicans. Supporting Proposition 14 (Top-Two Primaries Amendment). Working for the center-left donor that’s been directly responsible for the CAGOP malaise that led to the 2018 midterm destruction. Leadership doesn’t deny it. They make excuses for it. These are just a few examples of her center-left track record that included sanitizing social media accounts showing center-left leanings before announcing her run.

Despite that, Patterson’s campaign was flawless in disguising her as a conservative. The real coup was in gaining the endorsements of conservatives. Some research eventually revealed there was pressure to support her by the ruling class and specifically Kevin McCarthy. To the public and anyone who doesn’t follow the inner workings of CAGOP politics, one would think she’s the greatest thing since Mitt Romney said he was “severely conservative.”

What is it with center-left Republican candidates who claim conservatism come election time? Former gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari, former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Assemblyman Rocky Chavez, current San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, and former Republican turned newly-minted Democrat, Assemblyman Brian Maienschein. Patterson belongs in that group. Truth is, we know. These individuals epitomize those who’ll say anything for a vote. John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, better known as Lord Acton said it best, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Regardless, Patterson’s deception was impeccable in her portrayal as a conservative.

THE BATTLE FOR PROLIFE GAINS SUPPORT

Now that Democrats have determined “infanticide” is part of a woman’s pro-choice right, the prolife battle has begun anew in mainstream America. Shocking to many leftists, prolife is gaining prochoice supporters for the simple fact, they also believe once a baby is out of the womb it’s no longer an abortion, it’s murder. Patterson had a heartbreaking story to tell about her own family and why she’s prolife. It’s tragic and showed why many would think she’s a strong proponent of the prolife movement. Some stood to applaud her and her poignant words.

Here’s the problem. She worked to remove prolife from the California Republican platform. This is a great example of judging someone’s character by their actions, not words. This part of her speech encompasses everything wrong with anyone running for office. To use a true, tragic personal story to promulgate a lie. It made it even more ironic or maybe hypocritical is the better word, when I read in the San Francisco Chronicle that she said, “My parents told me that talk is cheap.” “Your actions speak louder.” Shades of leftism; saying anything for a vote!

THE MILLENNIAL LATINA

You’ll see some mainstream media (MSM) papers talking about how the CAGOP elected the first woman Latina and millennial to boot. I saw many women vote for her because of this. Some even told me they were voting for another candidate but their jubilance and talk after her election revealed who they voted for. That’s OK, I understand it. Culture’s take pride when one of their own break barriers. On the surface it’s a great moment for the CAGOP.

As a conservative Latino I promote more Latinos in positions of power in business and politics but only if they’re qualified and have similar values. Two mentors – one black (liberal) and one a woman (conservative) taught me about life, treating others, leading and managing and how to carry yourself in business and politics. They also taught me qualifications and values are a necessity.

However, Patterson is chair to further the center-left movement and goals of leadership and to focus on congressional races for McCarthy. As I told a brethren Latino, I don’t care that she’s Latina as much as she’s qualified and upholds the values of the Republican Party. If you believe the CAGOP should remain center-left, then she’s your girl but realize she’s also McCarthy’s girl to do as he dictates.

I believe in Martin Luther King’s belief of not judging someone by their color (or culture or religion) but their character. A center-left Republican has nothing to do with the party Lincoln built and Reagan revitalized.

BETRAYAL OF VALUES FOR DOLLARS?

Almost every Republican – conservative and establishment – endorsed Patterson. That includes my representatives:

Assemblywoman Marie Waldron
State Senator Brian Jones
District 50 U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter

They’re solid conservatives, so why endorse a center-left candidate? As I said earlier, various sources told me it was pressure from the party, including McCarthy whose only goal is to focus on congressional races to win back the house. That’s important, but I care about all of California. The biggest disappointment is Waldron who’s revered by most conservatives and Republicans. This is how the highest-ranking Republican in California grows conservatism? Grows the party?

That’s my issue with Waldron. As a former liberal, I know most Democrat politicians get out into the community to grow the base, inspire youth, women, people of color or anyone else. My conservative friends who admire her, pushback with the classic, “that’s not their job,” comment. To those I say, that’s a big reason we keep losing. We don’t hold them accountable in helping grow the party. Her endorsement of a center-left candidate just adds another issue I have with her to the list.

I walked and supported Hunter but did relay to his campaign, not to call come 2020. I voted for Jones and have always voted for Waldron, but I’ll now look at all Republican candidates who’ll challenge these individuals, but I don’t expect any. In Congress, Republicans voted over and over to overturn “Obamacare” knowing he would veto it. When they could’ve overturned it, they puckered up and failed their constituents to tow the establishment and donor line. When it came time to support a conservative versus center-left candidate for CAGOP chair, Waldron, Jones and Hunter chose to tow the establishment line. The real kicker? Many will chastise me and that’s problematic. Too much reverence without questioning actions, makes us no better than sheep.

UNIFYING REPUBLICANS WITH VOTER REGISTRATION

In a sign meant to unify Republicans, Patterson asked the defeated candidates, Allen and Frank to head the CAGOP voter registration task force. One of the biggest and most legitimate issues conservatives have with leadership is the fact the party no longer continues registration. Ironic because that’s one of their fundamental tasks. It’s easy for her to ask these two and create a perception of unity and extend an olive branch. The question they and all conservatives must ask, “What’s the budget and where will it take place?”

How much the CAGOP’s willing to finance in registering new Republicans will decide its success. We’re talking a multimillion-dollar campaign to be effective. Earlier, Patterson pushed back and said the party was already doing voter registration, but Frank exposed her lie. We know the current results. The CAGOP is now No. 3 behind the Democrat Party and NPP (No Party Preference). Before either Allen or Frank accept that challenge, they should make sure it’s properly funded with no constraints or walk away.

However, if the party does make it happen, maybe it’s finally understanding a base fundamental to winning – more Republicans! More important, it’s a huge step for current leadership in giving confidence to conservatives that Patterson’s willing to change. Regardless, how she votes and where they designate the registration events to happen is just as important. Her vote tells us where she stands as does where it takes place – will it only be districts where we lost congressional races in 2018 that McCarthy wants, or statewide?

BALLOT HARVESTING, CAGOP STYLE

Apart from the CAGOP chair election, one big issue that sadly, didn’t go anywhere was a bylaw proposal where Dhillon sought to change how proxies would work. Proxy votes are those delegates who don’t go to the convention but allow someone to take their ballot and vote for them. These votes decide elections, such as chair, bylaws, platform, amendment changes, etc. Proxy drills are a lucrative procedure worth tens-of-thousands with some telling me up to $30,000 but I didn’t corroborate those numbers. I did verify it’s mostly paid for by donors who’ve turned it into an art form with consultants specializing in it.

Stories have delegate trips to the convention paid for by donors. Republicans selected as delegates who won’t go to conventions but will give their vote by proxy to make sure leadership’s agenda can continue. It’s an incestuous, unethical system that desperately needs an overhaul. In fairness any candidate or individual can do a proxy drill. It’s just the establishment class, fed by donors has the resources to ramp up a machine to make it successful. Patterson’s infamous for running proxy drills for the center-left’s former top donor, the notorious Charles Munger Jr.

Dhillon compared it to Democrat ballot harvesting because it’s the practice of taking someone’s ballot and voting for them. I lost hope that someone would make this correlation. When I brought up the absurdity in this to others, they gave me dumbfounded looks. The irony! How Democrats destroyed the CAGOP using a tactic Republican leadership spent years perfecting against the conservative wing!

Dhillon was also unafraid to state two members benefiting directly from proxy drills didn’t recuse themselves during the committee vote. This is what conservatives talk about when they say the GOP consultant class doesn’t care about winning and doing right but getting paid. Ethics be damned! Sadly, by not getting out of committee it needed two-thirds vote to pass and went down in flames securing roughly, over 50 percent. Conservatives want change, but the establishment continues to thwart the people’s will. The “Force” is strong in the consultant class. Despite this, Dhillon was commanding in her tone and delivery in making her case from a position of moral strength, showing herself a force to reckon with.

This shows why conservatives adore Dhillon. She’s part of leadership yet challenged a corrupt tactic leadership uses to keep an iron grip on the party. She gives many conservatives still battling optimism. I’m sure she gained new fans and secured her conservative bona fides. It’s a shame she chose not to run for chair.

SILVER LININGS: RANDY BERHOLTZ and CONSERVATIVE VOTE TOTALS

I didn’t know Randy Berholtz before the election but spoke to him. I grew up with three sisters, a mother and an aunt and I jokingly brag about my “woman’s intuition.” When you meet Randy there’s an air about him. Confident yet humble. My gut or “intuition” says he’s “real” but like I always do, I ask around and research. From what I understand, he’s a successful businessman and rock-solid conservative.

It’s what I got from everyone I spoke to even when I delved into picking their brains to try to see how much was just talk versus truth. To a T, those who know him said, he’s as conservative as they come and those who didn’t know him too well, said, “I know he’s conservative.” It was good, no great to see at least one success at the CAGOP convention with his win to be Secretary of the CRP.

Despite the loss, another silver lining was the fact the two chair candidates, combined, received 45.4 percent of the vote (541 out of the 1,192 votes). It gives “New Hope,” conservatives may still have a future. While I thought we hit bottom, the CAGOP will likely dig a deeper hole but conservatives will remain. I say to conservatives: it’s not time to jump ship, but to refocus our own efforts and only support candidates that share our values. We’ve stopped going along to get along and many establishment candidates will face our wrath when we leave their selection blank on Election Day. I’ve voted this way since 2012 and others do as well. We’ll turn out for our conservative candidates but are no longer voting for someone simply because they have an “R” by their name. Mitt Romney, John McCain and Neel Kashkari learned this the hard way.

THE CAGOP CONSERVATIVE FUTURE

I expect some phone calls. Some will chastise me and tell me to keep the faith. Some’ll say, I’m the problem and get on board or leave or ostracize me because I’ve chosen to write how I see the truth. Luckily, I’m not beholden to the CAGOP even though I support them. As a conservative Latino, they need me more than I need them. As someone formerly in the media, I believe in making sure others understand what’s happening – good and bad.

Despite another beatdown by center-left leadership, I’ll remain a Republican because as a young liberal, I quickly realized Democrats don’t care about minorities as much as using blacks and Latinos for voter turnout. Don’t believe me? Look at the data since the “Great War on Poverty.” However, the grassroots must focus toward working and shaping ourselves into activists to work directly with candidates who share our values and can show a track record of those values.

While the Republican Party remains closer to our values, we must see the CAGOP and Patterson’s promises bear fruit. Since 2006, the Republican Party’s been feckless, and Patterson’s political circle’s been with leadership that’s brought the CAGOP to its knees. Forgive me if I’m skeptical and refuse to jump on board and sing Kumbaya.

We should be wary and take a wait and see approach. What other realistic choice do we have? It’s the Republican Party or bust and yes, I know – we’re closer to bust in California.

An abbreviated version of this article ran in the Valley Roadrunner March 1, 2019.

THE CONSTITUTION TRIUMPHS OVER BECERRA, THE FACT ACT AND NARAL

Abortion, Big Government, California Democrat Party, Democrat Party, William Del Pilar 4 Responses »

Jul 262018

A conservative Latino’s view on politics…

People, regardless of ideology and political party must realize, we need constitutional judges because they look at the Constitution to direct them on the law. Constitutional judges protect all ideological sides. When a court like the Ninth Circuit of Appeals rules with feelings, emotions, and ideology, it may be popular, but likely suppresses individual rights. Which brings us to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. This is a tale of morally corrupt groups and individuals overreaching and oppressing First Amendment rights. It includes the California Democrat Party, the Democrat-controlled legislature, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Governor Jerry Brown. With help from NARAL, a pro-abortion rights group who helped sponsor the bill at the center of the case.

Assembly Bill 775 Reproductive FACT Act

The far left forcing their will on pro-life clinics – called crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) – appropriated their First Amendment rights. Their weapon of choice? Assembly Bill 775 Reproductive FACT Act, created and signed into law by Governor Brown Oct. 09, 2015. Supporters of AB-775 will have you believe the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act is an abortion issue… they’re lying. It’s a First Amendment issue but by controlling the narrative, they can control the message and use that as a weapon itself, courtesy of the mainstream media (MSM).

The issue’s free speech and the unconstitutionality of the state to force someone to do something they do not believe. It’s also a “cumbersome” law to limit and take over the crisis pregnancy center’s marketing and advertising message. Don’t believe me? Let me explain.

Let’s take the example of a billboard, as given by Justice Clarence Thomas. In the majority opinion, he said, “As California conceded at oral argument, a billboard for an unlicensed facility that says “Choose Life” would have to surround that two-word statement with a 29-word statement from the government, in as many as 13 different languages. In this way, the unlicensed notice drowns out the facility’s own message.”

As you can see in his example, it’s gone from promoting the clinic’s services to promoting the state’s message at no cost to the state! Purposely done this way by Democrats achieve the following:

take over the clinic’s message thus promoting the abortion lobby using their competitor’s money.
make the clinic think twice about moving forward to advertise their services, thus fulfilling NARAL’s goal.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

From the get-go, the National Institute of Family (NIFLA) took the fight up, recognizing the injustice and the “Orwellian” path the Democrat-controlled California state legislature was on. They knew if not stopped, this was just the beginning. If successful, states would force unnecessary licensing of other industries to regulate, then suppress First Amendment rights to control them. Notching loss after loss, the Ninth Circuit – as expected – upheld California’s suppression of First Amendment rights. As hoped, SCOTUS decided it would hear National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. Those, closely watching were states with similar laws – Hawaii and Illinois and others. All hoping SCOTUS would align with Becerra to continue or re-establish their subjugation of First Amendment rights. The topic was pro-life clinics, again, this wasn’t about abortion. If upheld, states would extend the oppression of First Amendment rights into as many industries as possible.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers and AB-775

Nonprofit Crisis pregnancy centers or pregnancy resource centers, guide or counsel women on alternatives to abortion. Most CPC do not gain financially, that is, profit from the women they offer services to. In contrast to abortion clinics, such as Planned Parenthood that sells baby parts for profit. The fear of abortion clinics is simple – most CPC agencies tell the truth. That includes stating they won’t provide information on abortions. They don’t hide it or do anything to lie about it – they simply let the women know they won’t provide information on it. They believe there are alternatives to abortion. That’s what pro-abortion clinics fear – a woman realizing there are alternatives to abortion and even worse, depriving the Planned Parenthood’s of the world from profiting off abortions. Don’t believe me? Check this out – The Center for Medical Progress’ expose of Planned Parenthood.

Pro-abortion groups such as NARAL falsely label CPC as “fake clinics” and have one of two goals. With Democrat Party help, to shut them down or control and limit them. The term they use for CPC, “fake clinics” isn’t factual. They say this because they believe they’re the only authority allowed to talk on women’s reproductive rights and that abortion as the best and only viable choice. AB-775 was an ingenious way to checkmate CPC.

AB-775 forced CPC clinics to post the following notice:

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

AB-775 forced licensed CPC to do the following:

Public notice in a “conspicuous” place at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches and at least 22-point type.
A printed notice is given to “clients” in at least 14-point.
A digital notice at check-in or arrival.

AB-775 forced unlicensed CPC to also post the following:

“This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

In print and digital format and posted on their websites.
In English and other languages (up to 13 sometimes).
In at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches and at least 48-point type.
Must post “conspicuously” at the entrance
Must post it where “clients” wait to receive services (waiting room).
Must be “clear and conspicuous.”

Clear and Conspicuous

“Clear and conspicuous” as written in AB-775:

“The notice in the advertising material shall be clear and conspicuous. “Clear and conspicuous” means in larger point type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.”

California was mandating their message to have greater prominence than the CPC’s own message. Again, the term “Orwellian,” comes to mind. If not done, CPC clinics would be subject to $500 fines for the first offense and $1,000 every resulting offense. Think. If a CPC didn’t provide free advertisement for the state’s abortion services – something they don’t believe in – they’d pay a fine, over and over and over. A violation of First Amendment rights.

Professional Speech

There’s something known as “professional speech” – think the medical or legal field – and it’s regulated, ranging from licensing, advertising and marketing and more. However, states like California push the envelope by violating First Amendment rights through regulation of what professionals can say to their clients. The question became, can California force a CPC to speak on abortion, which they don’t believe in and goes against their beliefs? The lower courts agreed California’s law of “professional speech,” is allowable in limiting First Amendment rights. Thus, the importance for SCOTUS to comment on a rarely heard argument.

Some on SCOTUS didn’t like what the lower courts were agreeing with. Justice Clarence Thomas states, “Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals.” A crushing blow to leftists and those who would restrict First Amendment rights.

The other issue assumed by the lower courts – with government licensing authority there’s implicit power to regulate “professional speech.” “Danger, Will Robinson!” That’s scary because states could just force licensing on an industry to subdue First Amendment rights by claiming they have the power to regulate “professional speech.” It’s a way around First Amendment rights and Justice Thomas properly recognized this.

In Professional Speech and the First Amendment, First Amendment scholar Rodney A. Smolla surmises.

“The First Amendment is grounded in the premise that the marketplace is the better regulator of expressive activity than government. There are powerful cultural forces at work within professions that encourage professionals to act ethically and within professional norms. When professionals violate hardline rules of professional conduct, disciplinary bodies and courts may intervene, and such interventions will typically withstand any First Amendment challenge, even when subjected to strict scrutiny review.”

In other words, we can decide right from wrong and there are consequences that won’t infringe on the First Amendment. California’s reasoning for regulating “professional speech?” It tried justifying and claiming it had to do this because its own advertising and marketing efforts weren’t getting the job done. Justice Thomas, using common sense realized, maybe there’s not a “want” for this or California didn’t “pony up” and properly fund their marketing and advertising. Because it’s government and not a business, California, instead of realizing they needed to do a better job of market analysis to find out how to promote their services, chose to abuse its authority. It decided to subjugate First Amendment rights to deliver the state’s message. Justice Thomas was spot on in the opinion, writing, “Either way, California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it.” Going on, he also said, “[T]he First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.” A huge blow to the authoritative government and win for every individual, regardless of ideology or political affiliation.

Overly or Unduly Burdensome

Burdensome is something that’s too difficult to do. Justice Thomas’ billboard example clearly proves “overly burdensome” by showing how the state was forcing CPC to “call to attention” the state’s message over their own. While that example hits the mark, Justice Thomas’ following statement will make you recoil with a shudder at what the California, Democrat-controlled legislature was doing. Thomas said, “It targets speakers, not speech, and imposes an unduly burdensome disclosure requirement that will chill their protected speech.”

Viewpoint Discrimination

“Viewpoint discrimination” is when the state takes a side in a “particular view.” If you do an internet search, the most recent example of “viewpoint discrimination” you’ll remember is Chick-fil-A. Remember, when Boston and other leftist bastions (Chicago and San Francisco) said they wouldn’t allow Chick-fil-A to come into their cities because their owner supported traditional marriage? In this case, Chick-fil-A CEO’s comments on traditional marriage did not discriminate or create an unlawful offense but merely stated a belief. Because government (Boston mayor) disagreed with a different view than theirs and was going to act against Chick-fil-A made it “viewpoint discrimination.” Under the First Amendment “viewpoint discrimination” is illegal when applied by government.

Leftist darling, Justice Anthony Kennedy gave California, Democrats and Unions the first of two smackdowns – the other being Janus v. AFSCME – in ruling with the Constitution.

“This law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression. For here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions.”

Kennedy left no room for misinterpretation. Using the Constitution like a dagger to strike at the heart of evil, he further stated, “For here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions. This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these.”

Kennedy rightfully knew, forcing the state’s message on “crisis pregnancy centers,” while excluding organizations such as pro-abortion “family planning centers” was clearly “viewpoint discrimination.”

The Ruling and Aftermath

SCOTUS followed the Constitution and once again protected our First Amendment rights from those who would seize and subjugate them. NIFLA overcame NARAL’s bullying, an authoritative California Democrat legislature, a corrupt Attorney General Xavier Becerra and a morally-challenged would be king, Governor Jerry Brown. It couldn’t be clearer for SCOTUS to follow the Constitution and protect our First Amendment rights.

The major issues were easily proven:

Professional Speech.
Overly Burdensome.
Viewpoint discrimination.

It was no surprise it was a 5-4 decision with the pro-abortion Justices – who’ve never seen a coat hanger they didn’t like – ignoring the Constitution and voting against our First Amendment rights. While dissenting they did recognize the three major issues. However, as is typical of them, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan showed they don’t care about the Constitution. They rule on ideology.

Justice Kennedy said it best in responding to California’s arrogance.

“The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of “forward thinking.” App. 38–39. But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 715 (1977). It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

The Constitution protects all Americans. All ideologies. Liberals, conservatives, all political parties and religions living in these United States of America, including those who believe in pro-life and pro-abortion. As history shows, ideological power constantly shifts and the only steadfast hand during turbulent times is the Constitution.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra now goes back to the lower court with NIFLA expected to prevail because of SCOTUS. There’re many key takeaways, but this case shows why we need constitutional and not activist judges on the bench. That is to make sure our laws follow the Constitution.

William Del Pilar is politically active, currently sitting on the Valley Center Community Planning Group (VCCPG). As an entrepreneur, Del Pilar drove his fantasy sports company to set the standard for analysis and news distribution, helping to commercialize the industry from 1997-2008. Del Pilar sat on the boards of the Fantasy Sports Trade Association (FSTA) and Fantasy Sports Ventures (now owned by Gannett Co., Inc.).

Janus v. AFSCME and the Union Aftermath

California Democrat Party, Democrat Party, Teacher's Union, William Del Pilar 3 Responses »

Jul 012018

A conservative Latino’s view on politics…

I was lucky enough to hear Mark Janus speak on his legal battle against the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees – Janus v. AFSCME. This was before the decision came down and he gave me hope. His courage to stand up for his First Amendment rights and against unions and their mob-style tactics was inspiring. His desire to end their legal extortion to enrich corrupt politicians and unethical causes shows how one individual can change the course of a country.

Janus v. AFSCME began in Illinois, but California’s the top employer of government employees, thus has the most to lose. Our various unions, including the powerful, California Teachers Association have been extorting tens of millions of dollars yearly. Every union was watching if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) would follow precedent or correct the unjust decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977).

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

The sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia gave unions a reprieve when Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association – a comparable case – ended in a 4-4 deadlock. The deadlock meant the lower court ruling for unions by the extreme left-wing Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would stand. Rebecca Friedrichs and nonunion members saw their First Amendment rights denied. However, the chickens have come home to roost in Janus v. AFSCME.

Janus v. AFSCME

Mark Janus, a simple, working-class, public-sector nonunion member, rightfully believed AFSCME, was extorting him by charging “agency” or “fair-share” fees for one purpose. To support political causes and politicians he didn’t agree with. AFSCME’s response? They fiercely stated, these fees went toward collective-bargaining rights and not political influence.

Fundamentally, the public-sector deals with government policy, budgets, and tax dollars. This makes every issue, including wage and contract negotiations, intrinsically political. Thus, the legal extortion by unions in the form of “agency-fees,” is an infringement on a public-sector employee’s First Amendment right – to not join in political speech he doesn’t agree with. In other words, his money shouldn’t go to politicians or causes he doesn’t agree with. The union disagreed, therefore Janus v. AFSCME.

The union’s defense was straightforward. They say collective-bargaining rights are separate from politics. They call nonunion members “free-riders” or “freeloaders” who don’t pay into their coffers, yet benefit from the union’s hard work. They state, these “agency” or “fair-share” fees, nonmembers pay are necessary to cover expenses and other costs that help bring “labor-peace.”

The data doesn’t support this. Especially when you examine unions in states that don’t allow “agency-fees” that show there’s no harm to “labor-peace.” Despite stating these fees aren’t used for political influence, during oral arguments, liberal favorite, Justice Anthony Kennedy got the AFSCME attorney to admit otherwise. The lawyer inferred, losing this case would lead to a loss of political influence – a deathblow of an admission.

Janus Slays Abood v. Detroit Board of Education

The die was cast with Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, so Janus v. AFSCME would charter the course of a nation and come from newly seated Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. Silent throughout the oral arguments, he added mystery to an already tense proceeding. Would he give back, the public-sector worker’s First Amendment rights, or have them forever usurped by immoral unions.

In a “YUGE” win for the people, SCOTUS properly realized being a “free-rider” doesn’t allow a union to overrule an individual’s First Amendment right. The data also didn’t support “agency-fees” as necessary for “labor-peace.” The 5-4 decision favoring Mark Janus corrected the unjust 1977 decision of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, ending the union’s 41-year tyrannical run of trampling public-sector worker’s First Amendment rights.

At one fell swoop, Janus brought the all-powerful, authoritarian unions to their knees. A savage blow to unions who use member monies to control politicians, pass unfair laws and benefits that taxpayers must pay. Let’s not forget, union leaders “living large,” at their member’s expense.

The president of the American Federation of Teachers – $500,000 yearly.
The National Education Association secretary-treasurer – $430,000 yearly.

This sets back the abusive power of roguish unions, including teacher unions. Unions that haven’t cared for children in decades. Children with abhorrent graduation rates. Graduates with horrendous reading and math levels. Bigger and more bloated administrative staff, and pensions that continue to grow beyond sustainability.

“Opt-In” Triumphs Over “Opt-Out”

One of the key decisions in Janus is the union’s dishonest “opt-out” process. Now, workers must “opt-in” before employers automatically take fees from their paychecks. Before Janus, workers were automatically “opt-in” and to “opt-out” unions made this as difficult as possible, including:

specific time frames to “opt-out.”
purposely forced to hunt down, hard-to-find hidden information and forms.
harassment, bullying and alienating workers by unions because they want to “opt-out.”

Age-old unethical tactics used over and over! Employers, now, can no longer assume a worker will waive his or her First Amendment right. When a union has a worker’s money, they stop caring but now they must listen. SCOTUS, in its wisdom, recognized and corrected the fraud at the heart of “opt-out” procedures.

Unions Must Court Workers

What the mainstream media (MSM), Democrats, liberals, leftists and union representatives won’t tell you – the Janus decision does not impede a union’s ability to represent the worker. It forces them to earn a member’s support and trust. To bring financial accountability back – something not done in over 40 years.

They must now show, value to members, primarily how their fees benefit them. If successful, political influence will follow because a committed membership is an unwavering membership. Extorted money and corrupt laws can’t buy loyalty.

The data supports the Janus decision, as right-to-work states such as Nevada has higher unionization rates (12 percent) than the country (10.7 percent). Also, look no further than successful teacher strikes in right-to-work states such as West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Arizona. If unions have the worker’s best interests in mind, they’ll succeed despite this ruling.

Janus ends public-sector union’s shady political influence in using “agency-fees” to buy depraved politicians and pass laws and benefits that destroy a system and are unsustainable. It ends the legal extortion of public-sector employee’s money and subjugation of First Amendment rights. It doesn’t end unions – it just tries to make honest entities out of them.

Like a Hollywood ending, it’s over, the good guys have overcome the system… or have they? Not so fast… union lobbyists have given us California SB-866, an end-around on the Janus decision and other states are following suit!

The Empire Strikes Back, SB-866

As a former liberal, I applaud the fight in Democrats. Their will, desire and take no prisoner mentality has destroyed the California Republican Party and individual rights. As always, Governor Jerry Brown and his legislative cronies, like Storm Troopers, bow down to their donor masters.

This time, to create and enforce California SB-866 – a preemptive strike against the Janus decision, it’s law and gives unions power over an employee’s ability to act for themselves. Fox & Hounds has a great breakdown but here’re their main points:

Through the union, workers must ask to remove mandatory “agency-fees.”
Unions control in telling the agencies who is and isn’t paying dues.
Unions make employers responsible for worker’s claims.
Employers cannot contact workers directly about union dues deductions.
Employers cannot communicate with workers on their rights to join a union.
Unions can and will limit public disclosure of orientation sessions.

SB-866 screams “BIG BROTHER” by controlling and allowing communication only from one group, unions, over another, the employer. True freedom gives the worker, the choice to choose, but California Democrats are giving unions, the right to take this choice away.

It’s dangerous to create a law, molded to allow unions to control and subjugate the worker. By minimizing contact with their employer, who can show them the path to freedom, SB-866 embodies an Orwellian, dystopian society – as big brother as it gets!

The fight over SB-866 is court-bound as employers and watchdog groups continue to battle corrupt unions over this atrocity of a law and others. Laws with one goal – to subjugate the worker.

Protests, Strikes, & Union Violence

When unions don’t get their way with employers, they use public protests, strikes, and violence to force higher wages and greater pensions. With workers who seek to opt-out, they’ll use loyal sheep. To harass, intimidate and even threaten physical force.

They simply don’t care if it’s an employer or worker who suffers a beatdown. They only care about enriching themselves. It’s the union way. While a tale for another day, California has a multitrillion-dollar pension day of reckoning coming. That’s when you’ll see the union it all its violent glory.

During oral arguments, an AFSCME lawyer implied if the ruling went against them, we should expect to see labor unrest. Let me break that down and repeat what I said, labor unrest = public protests, strikes, and violence. It’s the union way to get politicians to comply and give them what they want. In other words, the lawyer was implying, the price to pay for no union violence is the “agency-fee.” A scare-tactic SCOTUS saw through.

Sadly, a politician’s way is to give unions what they want at taxpayer expense because they’ll be long gone before the piper comes calling. A politician’s way to counter union threats of labor unrest while growing their own power.

The Battle’s Won, But the War Begins Anew

California teacher Rebecca Friedreich and Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner will go unheralded as Mark Janus is the man of the hour and a hero or villain. Janus deserves this, but we can’t understate how Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association showed us, after 41 years, the country was willing to correct a wrong. Rauner did get the Janus case rolling with the help of others. While this battle can be confusing and the legalese hard to follow, Friedrich’s case condensed it into an easy-to-understand fight which gave Janus v. AFSCME public momentum.

Janus v. AFSCME is merely one step in trying to break corrupt unions, leftists, liberals, and Democrats who have one goal in mind – subjugate the worker and citizens of this country for control and power. California SB-866 is just one law but the California Policy Center has cataloged many more.

Make no mistake, we’re in a war as every Democrat-controlled legislature has or will pass laws to get around this decision. Laws to eradicate the hardworking public-sector worker’s First Amendment rights. For now, savor the victory of Janus v. AFSCME.