Get the facts on the California candidates running for election to the District 79 — California State Assembly
Find out their top 3 priorities, their experience, and who supports them.
Encourage this candidate to share their information on Voter's Edge.
Top contributors that gave money to support the candidate, by organization:
I am not a professional politician but an honorably discharged veteran, retired businessman, systems analyst and programmer with undergrad and graduate degrees in business and computer science. I spent my career in the private sector, with the exception of 4 years in the USAF where I learned to fly small civilian aircraft and support classified airborne weapons delivery and navigation systems.
I spent several years in the AeroSpace industry working on computer applications for aircraft manufacturing, employee compensation and internal business units. While there I was given an award for saving the life of a fellow employee by the president Lockheed. Later I was offered the opportunity to work with one of the first companies to write the software that connects all computers across the Internet. This was before most people even knew what the Internet was. Later still I was given another opportunity to work for a San Diego company that manufactured Internet DSL equipment. Later I worked as a Network Engineer contractor. I am a graduate of the University of Arizona and the University of Southern California. At California State University Northridge I completed all course work for the graduate and undergraduate Computer Science curriculum while working full time.This is an interesting question. I think the State can encourage affordable housing if it would stop discouraging affordable housing via extreme building regulations.
It is estimated that 50% of the cost of a new San Diego home is the result of building regulations. This suggests that the State of California should take a look in the mirror for answers to affordable housing.
San Diego county comprises 4,526 square miles, most of which is uninhabited but further away from employment and commercial centers. This argues for rural road, water, sewer and utility expansion and much lower gasoline, water and electricity prices to make living affordable in undeveloped areas of the county.
Elected officials can (and should) help to restore civility to public discourse but cannot alone overcome the incivility effects of the Entertainment industry, News media and drug culture.
Civility is a cultural product. Entertainment and news media glorify incivility. Drug abuse creates incivility. The institutions of family, education, religion, entertainment, sports, law enforcement and even the US military have been the guardrails of civility. Most of these are cultural, and beyond the reach of State government with the exception of K-12 public education.
Unfortunately K-12 education has been put at odds with two other cultural elements of civility; family and religion. Social indoctrination, which conflicts with family and religious values, occupies much of the time and resources that formerly went to K-12 education. This is part of the reason for the decline in civility and also the decline in California schools as revealed by their low ranking in competitive testing with other States.
The major division today is about the cause of climate change.
The Sun has short cycles and long cycles in which energy output varies, as the Sun's energy output changes so does Earth's climate.
To understand California's water resources we first have to appreciate that nature has given our State a 4 to 6 year wet-dry cycle. We do not have a simple yearly cycle as many think. Over that 4 to 6 year cycle California has on average per year 192 million acre-feet of rainfall, mostly in the north. According to the Federal USGS survey of 2010 California uses only 42 million acre-feet of water for ALL uses: Residential, Industrial, Commercial and Agricultural. Only 71 million acre-feet flows down California's rivers on average per year over the 4 to 6 year cycle. Every year of the 4 to 6 year cycle California on average receives about 430% more rain water than it consumes.
If we understand how agriculture works our water situation improves even more. What does a farmer do with water? It's simple, he moves water from one place in California then pours it onto the ground in another part of California. When water is used for Residential, Commercial and Industrial purposes it is contaminated by the process. The imported water the farmer pours on the ground adds to the ground water supply available for pumping.
Agriculture takes 60% of our 42 million acre-feet of consumption, that's about 25 million acre-feet. 42-25 leaves about 17 million acre-feet of consumption from Residential, Commercial and Industrial users.
We only contaminate about 17 million acre-feet of water per year but we receive 192 million acre-feet per year of fresh water on average over the 4 to 6 year cycle!!
Unfortunately our rainfall comes in deluges rather than evenly spread over the 4 to 6 year cycle. We saw this most recently in latter 2016 and early 2017 when the Oroville dam was almost breached from the torrential rains. Had we captured part of that deluge in new reservoirs we would not have to suffer another shortage 4 years from now when the drought is at its' worst. Instead we let all that excess water flow down the Feather river into the ocean.
In the mid-1800s Sacramento residents had to use canoes to navigate the city streets during floods. The first dams in Northern California weren't built to provide water but to protect from flooding the downstream flatlands. Water is a deadly hazard in the North but a precious commodity in the South. We should be able to make a deal!!
We did, it's called the SWP, State Water Project, that moves water from the Northern San Joaquin River Delta through man-made pipes and canals to Southern California.
Droughts do not have to cause water shortages if we capture the water when nature gives it to us. We have had our wet-dry cycle since California was discovered 500 years ago. It's time we learn to adjust to nature.
San Diego county only uses 550,000 acre-feet of water per year for ALL purposes. That leaves 16,450,000 acre-feet of water for the other Residential, Commercial and Industrial areas of the State.
The State must reform its' K-12 education for all students not only those of low-income. Testing results put California K-12 at 46th and 47th in reading and math respectively. 35 years ago California K-12 had much higher scores, find out why.
California spends about $60 Billion per year on all levels of education. For that we receive a rank of 47th or 49th lowest K-12 student test scores in the nation. We have beautiful new K-12 campuses in our city, very comfortable teacher retirement plans and yearly compensation that can exceed $100,000 per year in many cases.
Clearly the students and taxpayers have been swindled. Are our schools for educating students or are they for employing teachers and administrators?
The evidence says the latter is true.
It is time to come to a sad but unavoidable conclusion. California's K-12 education system is an extravgantly expensive failure.
California used to have the best K-12 in the nation. Then around 2002 or 2003 it was broken and has remained so since.
Discover what broke it and it will become clear what will fix it.
It seems clear that the professionals aren't addressing the pressing concerns of our citizens in the 79th Assembly District. Our young families need more economic opportunities, jobs, not fewer. Unfortunately current California legislation has imposed regulations that have driven 1,500 companies to other states and the jobs left California with them. Those regulations must be changed to reverse the flow of jobs back into California.
Our middle and lower income families are enduring sharply increasing costs for the necessities of life, such as water, food, gasoline and electricity. Sacramento has become perversely insensitive to the increasing financial burden its water policies, utility taxes, gasoline taxes and fees put on the average income earners. Those water policies must be modified for the benefit of middle and lower income residents and agricultural producers. The gasoline and utility taxes and fees likewise reduced.
The California Water Shortage Hoax is a reality as proven on my website. There is plenty of water in California, over 400% more than is consumed on a yearly basis. I would introduce or cooperate with other legislators to pass legislation to increase the storage capacity of California's Statewide water system. This will eliminate deliberately engineered shortages during our recurrent droughts.
The renewed effort to construct two large, multi-billion dollar water tunnels under the San Joaquin Delta is unnecessary and does not produce one additional drop of new fresh water. The San Joaquin Delta has transported water for free for decades, we don't need to spend $17 Billion - $50 Billion for tunnels to do the same work. The tunnel money should be switched to reservoir construction by State legislation.
California K-12 education has deteriorated from 1st place 30 years ago to 47th or 49th in the nation today. In 2015 San Diego Unified High School students failed the High School Exit exam at a rate of 70% for sophomores, juniors and seniors. Conversely California taxpayers' contributions have risen to $60 Billion per year to education at all levels. Taxpayers give much more to education and receive much less. This cheats the taxpayers and most importantly the students.
San Diego parents deserve expanded Charter Schools and Home Schooling options. Either parents should be given veto power over objectionable devices and practices in Sex Ed now promoted by the SD Unified School District or Sex Ed should be removed from SDUSD authority and responsibility by legislation.
Proposition 13 provides security to our elderly and fixed income residents. Yet Sacramento remains tone deaf to their needs and wants to whittle away at Prop. 13 to gather more revenue from those least able to afford it. This is cruel and I won't support any legislation to modify or repeal Prop. 13.
Sanctuary Cities laws interfere with Federal Immigration enforcement. I would sponsor or cooperate with other Legislators to repeal the California Sanctuary Jurisdiction laws.
In recent years the California Legislature has modified State Elections law to admit the widest possible number of voters. This has engineered loopholes which present clear voter fraud opportunities. For example the State Election Law penalties clauses for fraudulent voting were recently modified by the addition of a single word, "intent". This effectively neutered the fines and imprisonment penalties because "intent" is impossible to prove, even if the violation isn't.
There are many other Election Law fraud opportunities, too numerous to list here, that will take a conscientious effort to expose in existing Legislation and then repeal or modify.
I respect and cherish the Constitution and that includes the 2nd Amendment. Sacramento should focus its efforts on criminal arrest, prosecution and incarceration not law abiding gun owners. It isn't NRA members who are committing the murders, rapes, robberies and terrorist attacks.
One legislator cannot change laws alone but can give a voice to the forgotten citizens and remind, even browbeat legislators to do their sworn duty to the people that elected them. Several legislators together can change laws. So urge your friends in other districts to elect more like me.
Help us to awaken Sacramento from its insensitivity to the detrimental effects its regulatory policies and taxes are having on our residents.
California government is in dire need of individuals with real world experience, outside of government and politics, to correct the serious problems the State now faces.
That is why I am running for the 79th State Assembly seat.
The list of socially destructive legislation passed in the last two years by the opposition party needs an airing.
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
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 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 Voter's Edge California voter guide provides in-depth information about what's on your ballot. Enter your address to get a personalized list of candidates and ballot measures, including biographies, top priorities, who supports each candidate, and more. The voter guide includes descriptions of each California ballot measure and who is spending money for and against each measure. With Voter’s Edge, you have all the election information you need at your fingertips.
The content on this site is licensed with a Creative Commons license. Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC
