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:

  1. take over the clinic’s message thus promoting the abortion lobby using their competitor’s money.
  2. 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. AFSCMEin 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.).

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.

Jun 172018
 

REPUBLICAN PARTY US Senator candidates – DISAPPOINTMENT – MISSED OPPORTUNITY

A conservative Latino’s view on politics…

The Republican Party implemented endorsement rules to separate those who simply want to see their names on a ballot from those who want to be contenders. One of the criterion is 200 delegate endorsement signatures and at least 10 of them must be from delegates of the eight regions. In other words, they must work to be considered for the Republican Party endorsement.

It’s not easy and they have to travel throughout the state. It’s incumbent on the candidates to get out and interact with the delegates whose endorsement they’ll need. It’s the only way to gain those signatures and secure an endorsement potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of votes!

Not one Republican US Senate candidate secured the necessary signatures to qualify for endorsement consideration. On the voting floor, some at the CAGOP convention wanted to forego this criterion. It went nowhere.

It’s disappointing because this endorsement could’ve vaulted one of these candidates into the top two. Specifically, I’m looking at the top-four Republican vote-recipients inexcusably ignoring their best opportunity to gain an advantage over their opponents. To consolidate conservative and Republican voters around one party-endorsed candidate.

THE EXCUSE

The excuse I heard from one candidate for not gathering enough signatures was appalling. This candidate said their focus was on another political issue of higher priority. There was no time to gather signatures. I didn’t have the heart to say how wrong that was, so I politely said thank you for the time and good luck. I was shaking my head as I walked away, surprised this candidate thought the excuse was justifiable.

If you don’t view your run for US Senate as your highest priority, then why run? It makes no sense and all your name on the ballot does, is siphon votes from other Republicans. If finances are an issue, maybe you should seek a lesser office.

“But, but, but William, money’s what’s wrong with politics. You’re wrong to say that,” my critics say. Reality check people! Money is a prerequisite to run for higher office. Right or wrong, that’s how it works.

USE SOME COMMON SENSE

Common sense should help rule your decision in deciding if you enter an expensive race. California’s a “YUGE” state and if you can’t cover the basic financials as a grassroots candidate, then you shouldn’t run. If your names on the ballot just sucking votes from another candidate, then reconsider.

The Republican Party bears some responsibility in helping find candidates with finances and backing to run. I’m not talking establishment flunkies (see Duf Sundheim), but a compromise of the Republican voters will, and donors wishes, but that’s a story for another day.

CONSERVATIVES AND REPUBLICANS WANTED A CANDIDATE

The 2018 primary numbers showed Californians wanted a Republican to compete for US Senate but those who chose to run? Well, none took the endorsement criteria serious enough. That left many voters struggling to figure which candidate to rally around.

  1. James P Bradley : 475,844
  2. Arun K. Bhumitra: 298,239
  3. Paul A Taylor: 272,981
  4. Erin Cruz: 223,819
  5. Tom Palzer: 171,952
  6. Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente: 115,171 (author’s note – a Democrat disguised as a Republican)
  7. John “Jack” Crew: 78,578
  8. Kevin Mottus: 74,690
  9. Patrick Little: 73,359
  10. Jerry Joseph Laws: 56,978
  11. Mario Nabliba: 33,386

Total Republican Votes: 1,874,997 (as of June 14, 2018)

Ironically, US Senate was the race I received the most questions on who to vote for. I was struggling with it because Cruz was my favorite, but the numbers weren’t adding up, so I voted Bradley in the hopes we could vault him to No. 2. Those who asked, I told to do the same… we failed. Once the numbers began to come in, I knew a Republican Party endorsed candidate would’ve received most of the Republican votes – enough to vault him or her into the top two, thus my disappointment.

ANOTHER CYCLE AND NO REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE

We enter our second straight US senatorial cycle without a Republican on the ballot in November. That’s pathetic! Thank you, Charles Munger Jr., and CAGOP leadership.

Despite that, this go-round I don’t blame the party. The same party that sabotaged the last legitimate US Senate candidate, simply because he was a conservative. This time I fault the candidates as CAGOP leadership stayed out of this race. Why did they stay out it? That’s another sad, pathetic CAGOP tale for a different day.

Regardless, had one of the 11 candidates qualified for endorsement consideration, they would’ve won! Going one step further that person would be on the ballot in November. We must do better my friends, we must do better.

William Del Pilar is politically active, currently sitting on the Valley Center Community Planning Group’s board (VCCPG), an elected position. Technically, he’s a politician. 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.). You can view his other Op-Eds at the Valley Roadrunner, Del Pilar’s hometown paper and SD Rostra, San Diego’s online hub for politics.