presents
Voter's Edge California Voter Guide
Conozca la información antes de votar.
Presentado por
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
CalNonprofits@CalNonprofits
March 3, 2020 — Primary Election

Asamblea Estatal de CaliforniaCandidato para Distrito 79

Photo de John Moore

John Moore

Hombre de negocios jubilado
19,619 votos (17.4%)Winning
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
Para obtener más información a fondo sobre este candidato, siga los enlaces de cada pestaña en esta sección. En la mayoría de los lectores de pantalla, puede presionar Regresar o Ingresar para entrar a una pestaña y leer el contenido.
El candidato(a) proporcionó información.
Agradezca al candidato por compartir su información en Voter’s Edge.

Mis 3 prioridades principales

  • Un muro fronterizo seguro es esencial para la seguridad ciudadana y servicios sociales sostenibles. Las leyes estatales sobre santuarios deben ser derogadas y los delincuentes extranjeros retenidos bajo custodia. Del mismo modo, se debe impedir que los votantes no ciudadanos participen en nuestras elecciones.
  • No hay escasez de agua en California del Norte. También hay mucha para California del Sur si recogemos la suficiente en el norte. El agua no debe ser tan cara o escasa como se ha permitido que sea, SI empleamos a buenos administradores.
  • La educación sexual debe ser opcional y clínica no exploratoria, la hora de cuentos de las drag queens (Drag Queen Story Hour, DQSH) en instalaciones públicas con niños debe prohibirse. La antigua Propuesta 13 y la 2.º Enmienda deben protegerse. Las personas sin hogar deben recibir refugios modestos, rurales, similares a los de las bases militares de EE. UU.

Experiencia

Experiencia

Profesión:Veterano, analista de sistemas y hombre de negocios jubilado
Sistemas de transporte aéreo, informáticos, de sensores y de armas, sargent, Fuerza Aérea de EE. UU. (1970–1974)

Educación

California State University, Northridge Curso de posgrado de Ciencias de la Computación, curso completado, Ciencias de la Computación (1994)
California State Northridge Curso universitario completado, Ciencias de la Computación (1988)
University of Southern California Maestría en, Análisis Empresarial Cuantitativo y Bienes Raíces (1980)
University of Arizona Licenciatura en Humanidades (Bachelor of Arts, BA), Especialidad en Economía, especialidades secundarias en Contabilidad y Finanzas (1977)

Preguntas y Respuestas

Preguntas de League of Women Voters of California (4)

Describe what proposal(s) you would support to alleviate the shortage of affordable housing for all income groups in California?
Respuesta de John Moore:

Unfortunately the press has conflated Homelessness and the Housing Shortage into a single "crisis".

The Housing Shortage is a manufactured "crisis" caused by unnecessarily long delays in construction permits and out of control regulations. I have two aquaintances in the housing construction business. One has been delayed for almost 3 years on a simple ADU (Aux. Dwelling Unit). The original permit requests expired and he was required to pay for new ones, in the thousands of dollars. He still has no firm date for the permits to be issued. The second aquaintance builds large projects, he has been delayed over 7 months on permits. Construction loans are expensive, tens of thousands of dollars per day. That all goes into the final cost of the house. No wonder housing is so expensive. I don't doubt the City Council is encouraging the delays for the specific purpose of keeping newcomers out of San Diego.

There are only 6,000 native San Diego city homeless people. There are 1.35 million people in the city. 6,000/1,350,000 = 0.0044, that's 4.4 thousandths of the whole SD population, it's not a crisis. Many cities across the world would like to have such a small homeless population. 8 of 9 years ago homelessness wasn't a problem. Then the City Council of SD ordered the police to stop enforcing vagrancy and loitering ordinances. Then the City Council made street corners a mailing address for mail ballots so the homeless could vote. Another man made political problem.

What programs or legislation would you support to meet the water needs of all Californians?
Respuesta de John Moore:

The last full 10 year survey of California water from the Department of Water Resources covering 2001 through 2010 showed total precipitation of 205 million-acre feet for 2010. 1 acre foot of water, equivalent to about a football field with 1 foot of water evenly covering the top of the field, will provide 3 houses with 3 occupants each water for 1 year at 100 gallons per person per day for 365 days. That's 9 Californians fully supplied for 1 year at 100 gallons per day for each of the 9 residents.

1 million acre feet of water would supply 1 million x 9 = 9 million Californians for 1 year at 100 gallons per day per person.

4 million acre feet of water would supply 4 million x 9 = 36 million Californians for 1 year at 100 gallons per day per person.

We have about 38 million people in California so we need 38 - 36 = 2, we need water for an additional 2 million people.

1 million acre feet of water will supply 9 million people, so we only need 2/9ths of a million acre-feet of water for them. That equals 0.222 million acre feet.

So, 4.22 million acre feet of water will supply 38 million people with 100 gallons per day per person for 1 year.

4.22/205 = 2.1% of yearly rainfall. All 38 million of us only use about 2% of yearly rainfall in one year. All residential, commercial, industrial, municipal and agricultural users consume about 44 million acre-feet per year. 44/205 = 21.4% of 2010 rainfall.

We may need legislation to permit withdrawing 8 or 10 million acre-feet from the aquifer during droughts or we could maintain underground man-made underground aquifers for such occasions. We could legislate funding for flood water capture devices and systems that would save perodic flood waters below ground rather than let all that excess flood water run to the Pacific ocean. We have to utilize the rainfall that nature gives us, and that is flood and drought, not regular even rain over a yearly cycle but uneven over a 4 to 6 year cycle. Our wet years far more than compensate for all our State's needs so that it is easy to provide for the droughts.

BTW 2010 was only 4% away from the average rainfall for all 10 years, 2001 -2010, it was the closest to average annual rainfall for the decade. So it is the best proxy for the decade.

Don't forget the 2.2 billion acre-foot underground aquifer below the Central Valley discovered by Kang and Jackson of Stanford in 2016. That includes about 2,700 cubic kilometers of FRESH water (by California standards). That's enough for over 50 years of consumption at about 44 million acre feet per year. There is about another 1 billion acre-feet of brackish water in the aquifer. It's drinkable but not tasty. It's a lot cheaper to filtrate than sea water. It's a lot, lot, lot cheaper (and a lot safer to drink) to filtrate than sewer water.

To reach a goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, as set forth in a 2018 executive order what, if any, proposals, plans or legislation would you support?  Please be specific.
Respuesta de John Moore:

A review of Carbon Neutrality is in order based on recent research by Dr. Valentina Zharkova, Solar Physicst, university of Northumbria UK, Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Holland and Dr. Patrick Moore, Ecologist & founder of GreenPeace, Canada. Dr. Zharkova has developed a mathematical model that captures all the Solar Minimums and Maximums back to the Roman Warming Period plus the Dalton and Maunder Solar Minimum Cold Periods. Her model calculates the changing temperature on Earth using only Solar data. Her model does not use Earthly CO2 as a predictive factor in Global Temperature.

Likewise Dr. Svensmark and Dr. Moore (no relation) do not need Earthly CO2 (man made or otherwise) in their models to explain the historical temperature changes of Earth but only need Solar and Galactic factors.

The "Carbon" in Carbon Neutrality is found as CO2, Carbon Dioxide.

The new discoveries by Zharkova, Svensmark and Moore relieve us of the costly proposals contained in Carbon Neutrality.

Let's take advantage of this new knowledge.

According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, we spend over $81,000 per individual who is incarcerated.  Other than incarceration, what ways can the State address safety and justice?
Respuesta de John Moore:

Neighboring States are much less expensive and will take California prisoners for incarceration. The $81,000 figure could probably be reduced by 20% to 40% by housing prisoners in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado prisons. This addresses safety, justice and cost most effectively.

¿Quién proporcionó dinero a este candidato?

Contribuciones

Más información acerca de contribuciones

Fuente: Análisis de datos de la Secretaría del Estado de California de MapLight.

Creencias poliza

Documentos sobre determinadas posturas

The 14th Amendment and Birth Citizenship

Summary

A discussion of the previous Supreme Court decisions on the requirements for US Citizenship defined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution


The 14th Amendment was passed in July of 1868, 73 years after the repeal of the 1790 Immigration Act.

This is the citizenship text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


This directly contradicts the 1790 Immigration Act. The 14th Amendment requires birth in the US or naturalization in the US. The 14th adds another citizenship requirement, that the person born in the US or naturalized in the US be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

The 1790 Immigration Act had allowed Natural Born citizenship to extend to births outside of the geographic boundaries of the US. That was repealed in the 1795 Immigration Act. The 14th Amendment likewise required birth on US soil and gave that Constitutional authority which is superior to Federal Legislative authority. The 14th Amendment is superior to all Federal Legislation like the 1790, 1795, 1820 and 1866 Acts and all current Federal Immigration laws.

The Jurisdiction phrase of the 14th is the crux of the issue, the issue that those on the Left pretend not to see. US Jurisdiction isn't conveyed solely by birth within the geographic boundaries of the US.

The 14th Amendment drops the term "Natural Born" and references only "birth" citizenship. This doesn't create a conflict between the two phrases because "Natural Born" was never specifically defined in the 1787 Constitution, which still holds today.

Since the birth citizenship is created in the 14th Amendment it is equal to the phrase "Natural Born" in the 1787 Constitution, and superior to all Federal Legislation.

The 1787 Constitution mentioned 3 types of citizenship.

1) Revolutionary Generation

2) Natural Born

3) Naturalized

#1 is now moot since all that generation has all passed away, though it did give them the authority to seek the presidency. Our first natural born or birth citizen President was in 1837, 50 years after the signing of the 1787 Constitution.

#2 Birth Citizenship was not defined in the 1787 Constitution, but understood at the time as "Natural Born". The only defined birth citizenship in the Constitution is in the 14th Amendment.

#3, Naturalization was left by the 1st Congress for future Congress's to draft.

There are two requirements for US Birth Citizenship under the 14th Amendment.  
1) The birth must occur within the geographic boundaries of the United States.

2) The baby must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States

Those on the Left ignore requirement #2. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that says or implies that Birth conveys US Jurisdiction. If that were the case then the condition of US Jurisdiction would not have been included as a separate condition for US citizenship.

In the 19th Century and early 20th Century the citizenship of the Father passed to his child, not that of the Mother. This was universal at the time and conveyed the national Jurisdiction (except for Great Britain which claimed all children born on British soil).

The American law was addressed in the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court in the 1873 Slaughterhouses Case. The Court said specifically that a baby, born of non-citizens while travelling or passing through the US, does NOT receive US Citizenship. The Father's citizenship flows to the child, since the Father in this case is foreign, foreign jurisdiction goes to the newborn.

This same rule is applied to Ambassadors and emissaries of foreign governments serving in the geographic boundaries of the United States. Their children born in the US are subject to the foreign jurisdiction of the Father, an Ambassador or agent of a foreign nation. This rule is recognized across the world, not just in the US.

If the Father is an American citizen and the birth happens within the geographic boundaries of the US then the child receives US jurisdiction and by extension US Birth Citizenship because both requirements 1 and 2 above are fulfilled.

If the Mother not of US citizenship gives birth in the US and the Father is not present at the birth or not a US citizen the baby does not receive US jurisdiction. If the Father later presents himself but cannot prove US citizenship at the time of birth then the child does not receive US jurisdiction and must wait till age 18 to become Naturalized. If the Father can prove US Citizenship at the time of birth then the baby would receive US jurisdiction, retroactive to the time of birth.

The later 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision did not specifically address or reference the 1873 decision. Nor did the 1898 decision specifically overturn the 1873 opinion on Ambassadors and foreign emissaries or agents or births of foreign nationals on US soil. Nor did it address the Father's jurisdiction passing to the son in that case.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals who lived in the US for decades and established a successful business in San Francisco. Neither Wong Kim Ark nor his parents ever applied for US citizenship during their decades of life in the US prior to filing the suit. Both parents considered themselves Chinese citizens and remained loyal to the Emperor of China and returned to China where they retired and died.

Wong Kim Ark returned to the US after establishing his parents in their retirement in China. Upon returning to the US in 1896 he was denied entry because of the recently passed Chinese Exclusionary Act. He took the case to the US Supreme Court and won. The Court declared him a US citizen by birth.

For reasons shown below this may have been a kind of citizenship bestowed by the Supreme Court on an individual rather than a class of individuals. Did Wong Kim Ark get a sympathetic decision of birth citizenship just for himself?

Wong Kim Ark was the first Supreme Court decision to turn a blind eye to the Jurisdiction phrase in the 14th Amendment. That set the precedent for other lower court decisions which likewise pretend the Jurisdiction phrase isn't there for Birth citizenship.

Ironically the Jurisdiction phrase is mandatory for Naturalized citizens when they take a specific oath to be subject and loyal solely and only to the US and the US Constitution. The Naturalization oath requires a renunciation of ALL foreign loyalties and allegiances. That places the newly sworn Naturalized Citizen solely under US Jurisdiction.

Clearly it is inconsistent and contrary to the 14th Amendment for Naturalized citizens to be subject to US Jurisdiction but not for Birth citizens to likewise be subject to US Jurisdiction, as the 14th requires, but the 1898 Supreme Court case decided otherwise.

The 1873 Supreme Court opinion specifically states there were two reasons for the 14th Amendment:

1) To give citizenship to all the freed slaves. It had been argued that while the slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment they were not granted citizenship by it. Congress quickly responded by passing the 14th Amendment which bestowed citizenship.

2) To end the decades long legal battles on the definition of US citizenship that had raged in the press and the courts since the 1790 Act.

The 1873 Supreme Court case, only 5 years after ratification of the 14th, was very close in time to those who wrote the 14th Amendment and their opinions on it were clearly in the minds of the presiding Justices.

The 1898 Supreme Court decision was exactly 30 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

A technical point arises from the fact that the 1898 case was primarily on the question of citizenship. Whereas the 1873 case was primarily on the question of the Louisiana courts authority to force removal of slaughterhouses and reconsolidation in one parish of New Orleans which incidentally required consideration of the equal treatment of black citizens under the 14th Amendment in that Louisiana decision.

None the less we still have valid and powerful Supreme Court opinions on the 14th Amendment from the generation that wrote it and most importantly the requirement of US Jurisdiction for both kinds of US Citizenship, birth and naturalized.

If we accept the premise that the Court made what appears a rash and unconstitutional decision only for one person then it makes more sense than to apply it to a class of persons.

Since the 1898 decision US Immigration law has made illegal entry into the US a Federal crime on the first offense and a felony on the second offense. The term "Illegal Alien" is from the 20th Century Federal Legislation.

The Supreme Court has never adjudicated the question of US citizenship attained in violation of Federal Immigration Law. It is clear that a baby allegedly given US citizenship by birth in the US of one or two illegal alien parents has gained that alleged citizenship through the deliberate commission of a Federal crime.

Can or should US citizenship or any legal benefit be granted under such an illegal act? Legal precedent says "NO!".

--- John

The Dangerous and Socially Destructive Legislation Passed By The Opposition Party

Summary

The list of socially destructive legislation passed in the last two years by the opposition party needs an airing.

The most destructive California Legislation passed and proposed in the last 3 years, all supported by the opposition party, are listed below.

Nothing makes the distinction between myself and  the opposition party more clear or the threat to California more visible. The opposition party is in favor of all of the Bills and Legislation below. I am against all of them.

AB186 Provided for illegal drug consumption (heroin) safe places without fear of prosecution or lost welfare benefits

AB1810 A defendant charged with a felony may have it dismissed if a mental health expert persuades a judge the offense resulted from a treatable mental disorder. “the most irresponsible legislation our state has ever seen” DA Summer Stephens.

SB239 Reduces criminal penalties for unprotected sex by those (includes prostitutes) infected with HIV-AIDS

The opposition party's signature bill, the Healthy Youth Act 2015, has been used to introduce sex toys and pornographic comic books to 11 year-olds in SDUSD Sex Ed. Control must be given back to the parents.

SB1 Raised the California gasoline tax 12cents/gallon ($600 to $700 per family/yr) and Car Registration fee $25 to $175 depending on vehicle,

SB1 Tax is automatically raised EVERY year!

AB1668 established a 55 gallons/resident/day as the standard for indoor residential water use. Average use today is over 100 gallons/resident/day

AB1668  SEC.3. Section 1846.5 is added to the Water Code:

1846.5. (a) An urban retail water supplier based on drought conditions, can be fined ten thousand dollars ($10,000) each day the violation occurs. Other California Water Law permits the Supplier to pass fines to residential customers.

My numeric proof, at MooreForAssembly.com showed California has water over 400% above consumption, no restrictions or $24 Billion Tunnels needed.

SB285 Prohibits public employers to discourage employees from joining a union.

SB54 Sanctuary Cities Act, reduces cooperation between local and Federal immigration authorities and interferes with the apprehension of criminal illegal aliens.

AB1008 Prohibits employers from asking job applicants about a criminal history

 

Comparta este sitio para ayudar a otras personas a investigar sus opciones para las votaciones.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION