Manteca City Council Race Has A New Front Man

It’s already 2008 and most of the entire nation has seen their fair share of politics with the presidential primaries. However, this has not stopped Samuel Anderson of Manteca California.

In 2006 Samuel Anderson posted a significant number of votes of 4253 or 23.4% of the vote. It wasn’t enough to obtain the city council seat he challenged against the two incumbents, but it was enough for him to substantially use for 2008 in his next challenge against incumbents Steve DeBrum and Jack Snyder.

According to independent polling and research from local papers and residents the current two incumbents are trailing Samuel Anderson by at least 10 percentage points. Most feel that Jack Snyder has completed his duties and should move on to greener pastures and enjoy his retirement including getting involved in other areas of need that the city offers with numerous non-profits if he wants to keep busy.

Steve DeBrum is trailing because of his negative ratings by the press and concerned citizens that seem to think that he continues to give the council a rubber stamp to whatever Willie Weatherford decides to do. Although he has been involved with many areas of the city and charities, being on the city council is starting to fade and people see him now as someone who can remain a leader of non-profit groups and organizations throughout the City of Manteca and do better there.

Samuel Anderson has shown significant progress in his business and personal life as he continues to be a Managing Partner of a small venture capital group Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC and continues as the President of Safe Surrender Site – Baby Safe Haven which is an organization that assists all hospitals, fire stations, police stations and other designated places where a mother can drop off her newborn with no questions asked. Because of his active role in this area Samuel has garnered trust and requests from others around the world including Japan, Germany, and Australia and recently by personal request by the Kingdom of Swaziland.

Samuel continues to knock on doors throughout Manteca and has also approached several businesses in the city introducing himself and getting to know everyone personally. “I know I can’t meet everyone, but I know I can make a difference in being able to do what I need to do to introduce myself and ask for their vote because it does make a huge difference in any election to get to know those you are asking to put their trust in you for the position (of city council)”.

The other candidates Debby Moorhead (Manteca Chamber of Commerce) and Ben Cantu (Retired City Planner) have a rough road ahead of them because of their inexperience of running for election. At the recent South San Joaquin Republicans Meeting where Local and State candidates had the opportunity to introduce their campaigns Samuel Anderson shined over all the candidates and it was obvious by the front page headlines the following morning.

Ben Cantu was a no-show and lost a golden opportunity to show what he is about. Not a good decision. Debby Moorhead spoke about her love for the city and wants to be ‘The Voice’ for Mantecans. Steve DeBrum wishes to continue business as usual and Jack Snyder wants to continue because he feels he owes the city for what it has done for him. This was a very heartfelt speech and was sincere from Jack, but honestly, Jack Snyder has given Manteca much already and he should not feel that he owes it back. It’s time for new blood and Jack is on top and should bow out gracefully. Jack, you have my utmost respect for your service to Manteca and a giant, Thank you from many of your citizens!

Samuel Anderson’s campaign website (www.votechangenow.com) spells it out with what the City of Manteca needs. Starting out he wants to have a top to bottom inquiry of the cities funds by requesting an audit to determine any wasteful spending including having a clear picture of the cities current circumstance. “This current council spends money like it grows on trees and if I were to run my businesses in this fashion I would be expelled from my board and then fired from the company”.

He is now accepting contributions. In the last campaign he only spent $103.87 total. That is extremely remarkable since he had no signs; no postings, no mailing, and he went door-to-door to over 10,000 homes in Manteca. I think it’s the right decision to accept funds because it will promote much better his position as it would with any candidate.

The race ahead of Samuel Anderson is going to be a tough one, but he does have a good lead and is giving it all he has. The other two candidates will probably have a difficult time against Steve DeBrum but with his current ratings he is still vulnerable. But anything is possible in politics and we still have a few months before the Manteca election. Good luck to everyone.

By: Jonathon Cole

Social Networking Sites - Are they worth it?

Recently I came across a fascinating incident that I decided to make an article of it. Don't worry, but I'll keep it short so I won't bore you about what you probably already know.

It starts with someone who is running for local office who uses a popular social media website called LinkedIn. While putting together his new website and preparing his lists of who endorses him and who does not and who he has not asked yet and those who he will not ask and so on, he sends the lists to the web developer who has designed his site and will be sending out invites and the whole details about the campaign...well, an honest mix-up happened that the wrong list got published online and someone on that list got an alert from Google about it.

What happened next was this person had decided to write to the candidate about it (which was the right thing to do) and the candidate responded within 7 hours of the posting which had taken place from a Friday night to an early Saturday morning. Are you getting this picture, yet? Right, no harm was done in any way. The page was permanently deleted so that the Google bots would no longer show it and a response was posted on LinkedIn and also sent out as an apology for the mistake.

While this was happening one of the persons had decided that this was not enough apparently and continued to write about it, created this entire article which appeared as if it was a masterpiece we all should read about. Although it now has somewhat of a story about it, it really was fabricated because the person reacted out of his own mind and created this entire mess with copy and pasting of this persons website onto his very own domain (copyright infringement) and links to other well-known non-profit organizations (in clear violation of their terms and conditions) just to make a point and in the process, and smear this person's name and website.

Let this be a lesson to all of you who decide to build a list of contacts and call them 1rst-Level Contacts. It could bite you in the ass and cause problems later on down the road. It was obvious that just by an honest mistake this person who happened to be a first level contact decided to do two things at once. First, contact this candidate about the mistake and the problem was corrected and solved. Second, decided to slam this person at the same time as if he was reading his mind and clearly it was to 'get even'. I read this persons blog pages and his website and it's so obvious that it just makes me want to puke.

You see, when you write you should truly write about what has happened, NOT what did not happen. You can write about something that happened, but if you don't tell the entire story about it and how it was corrected and how it was an honest mistake...when you deliberately leave out these facts so that you have a 'story', it becomes exactly this...a story. Really, it becomes a lie. A complete fabricated part truth, but told to you in a different light that only the author knows about, but you are not aware of. It's 'Alice in Wonderland' folks. He used a part truth to create a hypothetical story that actually did not happen, but could have, but turned it into another hypothetical using this persons real name.

This person has continued to post his fabricated story (several modifications) out of anger and hate because he feels he has a story to tell. I read it and it's so difficult to swallow that if someone really used their list to post an endorsement of their entire contacts without permission, don't you think that it could easily be resolved and then taken care of and/or dealt with accordingly? Absolutely it could. Would it have caused you business? No, I don't think so. I don't think we're all that important, only in our own minds. It's not enough to cost you business if it was dealt with quickly and accordingly which it was.

Here's my point. On LinkedIn you can network with others and share each others contacts. If you grant permission to those in your first-level contacts you can actually view all their contacts and also contact them. So, let's say I decided to write about it. Let's say I take this guys story and make it my own story...or at least make it a story that has some content or meaning. I decide to inform you that 'someone' has taken this particular candidates first level contacts and post them on a page so that he can show YOU that he made up this endorsement page that is phony. You see what I mean? I just told you that it is possible that someone can take your list and post it to make you look bad. However, I can choose to either make an example out of someone or just post an IDEA about what could happen (a hypothetical). The interesting part about it is, this person did both. He still has an illegal copy of the website on his site, now it's a forwarded PDF web page so there are no links about it any longer. Probably someone complained about it.

It's no wonder why not too many good citizens want to run for public office these days because they can get into issues with amateur writers who could be in their network or anything else and then decide to slam them for what has appeared to be pure hate and pay-back and then fabricated stories. As my editor would tell me, 'Jon, it's not worth the paper its printed on'. And I agree. It's false, it's misleading, it's talking about a story that does not tell the entire truth and it still mentions this persons name with the intent to try to get others on his personal contacts to no longer want to be apart of.

I'm not going to show you the links yet of this persons blogs or web sites because at this time I feel it does not deserve any credit. I'm just pissed-off that it is a fact that this person took a simple short-timed honest mistake and turned it into something (fabricated) he now is covering up as he mentioned (hypothetically) and still posts so called 'evidence' of this other person.

This is not true journalism nor is it a true article. It's a fabricated story made up of an honest mistake written to make you think another way when in fact it came from something else totally different. What a hoax!

NOTE: I purposefully left out links to the information of this article because I do not want to continue something that should be taken care of by these individuals. However, I'm going to keep my eye out on these links and this person who slammed this LinkedIn member and contact of his who is running a local election. He really needs to take it down and then if he feels it's important enough, then he needs to mention that it is a hypothetical story and not a story that actually happened because even though it started out that way it actually did not happen this way because it was NOT the intent of the candidate to do so, it was an honest mistake that got the 'Alice in Wonderland' fairytale imagination of this contact who re-acted instead of taking the time to take care of it. It's called truth in media.

However, if I see no changes I will post the links. I wonder what his employer would think of his work and how this person really is? Why not? He seems to post his name and links to his business without any issues.

Copyright and Website Violations

It's almost amazing how so many people across the country and also from outside the country get involved in the political process. Nothing wrong with it, but when it turns to outright blatant copy and paste of a political website onto another domain without the permission of the owner and including links from other well-known websites that are non-profit organizations that do good for the public domain, these same people continue and violate those sites terms by posting their links on their sites without permission and continue to do so.

It's no wonder that we have a world were we can't trust each other anymore. Take for instance Samuel Anderson and Vote Change Now Campaign Website. His site has been the talk of the Internet lately and it appears that publishers want to make their own editing of this site including outright copyright infringement. These folks don't know that by doing this and expecting that this person can't do anything because freedom of speech is incorrect and can bite them later on by their willful continuation of copyright violations which are posted on the websites of everyone.

Let it be known that if you continue to publish pages and website copies without permission just because you feel like it or feel protected by the law you had better know which law you are thinking about because others have tried it and others have failed. Willful neglect and continued abuse will get those who think they have protection under the law into great trouble now or later. I would not want to be in their shoes because it can be very costly.

My name is Jonathan Cole, I'm a real live human being and I write about those who have NO RESPECT for the law and others. I've written for several well-known publishers and print news media organizations. I chose to write about this particular person and his site because I have been covering his city recently and many of the surrounding cities keeping a direct eye on the local city politics. With the election only a few months away, he's in the lead and appears to be keeping it strong and will become the next city council member of Manteca. Just remember folks, if you see something that appears wrong or different, and the domain does not match the real web site, then there is something wrong and PHISHY about it. Don't trust it!