I find this very absurd that they would do so because of the facts. Let's discuss some of them shall we?
FACTS:
- John Diaz is a Democrat candidate that states on his website and I quote, "In the past 5 years, I have been debating and defending the views of the Democratic Party whenever opportunity arises."
- The Democratic Party is Pro-Choice and Pro-Homosexual Marriage. This is very clear.
- You can visit this link: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=172 and it will show you that the California ProLife Council failed to list contributor occupation and employer information and was fined $3,000.00.
- Another link will show another fine of $11,000.00: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/Agendas/12-03/01-182Ex.pdf
John Diaz's website does have a question and answer regarding he is against any minor having an abortion without parental consent. This does not mean he is pro-life. He is still for abortion, but as a child, let the parent know about it.
What are these people thinking? How do they come to the conclusion of their endorsements without checking and double-checking the candidates they endorse? I will tell you, they have not checked, they rely only on a signed document and then hide behind non-partisan talk when it benefits them.
Samuel Anderson is the only candidate since the start of his campaign, has openly spoken about Pro-Life and it was his first spoken sentence of his first speech on May 12, 2008. Samuel Anderson happens to be the President of Safe Surrender Site, the organization responsible for passing laws in all 50 States for New Born infants as the Baby Safe Haven. He also has championed software that his company personally created for free download for the safety of missing children and family members so police officials can locate and have the information about any child within minutes and has over one million downloads and is sponsored by hundreds of police agencies across the country. It's called the Child ID Kit.
I called Samuel Anderson and spoke with him over the phone and asked him 'how do you feel about this'? Here is his comment.
"This is why I don't accept endorsements from organizations. They can endorse anyone they want to and that's fine. But, if they should make a mistake, it would make me look bad to everyone. I'm for the people and my campaign is grassroots, period. If you're looking for an endorsement of me being pro-life, then do two things that all the others have not done and will not do. I have spoken my position loud and clear and on my website www.votechangenow.com. The Manteca Bulletin has an article headlined, " Anderson makes it clear: He's the pro-life guy for Manteca council". I think this speaks volumes and the people at the ProLife Council should re-think what they did not think of in the first place. I can't stop anyone from endorsing anyone and they can do it if they want to even without my permission. I've had other groups in 2006 endorse me regardless of my consent because freedom of speech allows them to, but I don't have them representing me on my website or papers. You see what has happened, you put everyone in a glass of clear water and then you put some dirt in it and what do you have...you have muddied the water, now everyone is associated with it."
Have they ever asked you or given you papers on any endorsement?
"No, they have not. No phone calls or letters. We have the records here of every single phone call message and letter sent to us, but not from them."
There you have it Manteca. I also checked Samuel's business website and it states on there, "In a world of doubt, choose wisely." I agree, he chose to do the right thing and it is amazing how these so called Christian groups will choose to turn away and endorse someone who promotes the values of another party completely because he will not play their games.
After checking out all the other candidate websites, none of them take any stand whatsoever on Proposition 8 for Marriage between one woman and one man or on Pro-Life. Only Samuel Anderson stands up for this and promotes it on his website. Just click on 'Moral Values'.
In 2006, Samuel Anderson was endorsed by Ken Own from Christian Community Concerns for his pro-life stance. I understand that it will happen again in this years election.
As far as I am concerned, the California Pro-life Council is an organization filled with people who don't do their research and if they consider themselves "Christians" as they say on their website, then they need to take another hard look in the mirror. I would not endorse them and or donate to their cause. There are three good reasons above as to why not. $14,000.00 lost and a Democratic candidate that promotes Pro-Choice. Talk about mixing oil and water and believing it will work.
What are these people thinking? How do they come to the conclusion of their endorsements without checking and double-checking the candidates they endorse? I will tell you, they have not checked, they rely only on a signed document and then hide behind non-partisan talk when it benefits them.
Samuel Anderson is the only candidate since the start of his campaign, has openly spoken about Pro-Life and it was his first spoken sentence of his first speech on May 12, 2008. Samuel Anderson happens to be the President of Safe Surrender Site, the organization responsible for passing laws in all 50 States for New Born infants as the Baby Safe Haven. He also has championed software that his company personally created for free download for the safety of missing children and family members so police officials can locate and have the information about any child within minutes and has over one million downloads and is sponsored by hundreds of police agencies across the country. It's called the Child ID Kit.
I called Samuel Anderson and spoke with him over the phone and asked him 'how do you feel about this'? Here is his comment.
"This is why I don't accept endorsements from organizations. They can endorse anyone they want to and that's fine. But, if they should make a mistake, it would make me look bad to everyone. I'm for the people and my campaign is grassroots, period. If you're looking for an endorsement of me being pro-life, then do two things that all the others have not done and will not do. I have spoken my position loud and clear and on my website www.votechangenow.com. The Manteca Bulletin has an article headlined, " Anderson makes it clear: He's the pro-life guy for Manteca council". I think this speaks volumes and the people at the ProLife Council should re-think what they did not think of in the first place. I can't stop anyone from endorsing anyone and they can do it if they want to even without my permission. I've had other groups in 2006 endorse me regardless of my consent because freedom of speech allows them to, but I don't have them representing me on my website or papers. You see what has happened, you put everyone in a glass of clear water and then you put some dirt in it and what do you have...you have muddied the water, now everyone is associated with it."
Have they ever asked you or given you papers on any endorsement?
"No, they have not. No phone calls or letters. We have the records here of every single phone call message and letter sent to us, but not from them."
There you have it Manteca. I also checked Samuel's business website and it states on there, "In a world of doubt, choose wisely." I agree, he chose to do the right thing and it is amazing how these so called Christian groups will choose to turn away and endorse someone who promotes the values of another party completely because he will not play their games.
After checking out all the other candidate websites, none of them take any stand whatsoever on Proposition 8 for Marriage between one woman and one man or on Pro-Life. Only Samuel Anderson stands up for this and promotes it on his website. Just click on 'Moral Values'.
In 2006, Samuel Anderson was endorsed by Ken Own from Christian Community Concerns for his pro-life stance. I understand that it will happen again in this years election.
As far as I am concerned, the California Pro-life Council is an organization filled with people who don't do their research and if they consider themselves "Christians" as they say on their website, then they need to take another hard look in the mirror. I would not endorse them and or donate to their cause. There are three good reasons above as to why not. $14,000.00 lost and a Democratic candidate that promotes Pro-Choice. Talk about mixing oil and water and believing it will work.