Petition to Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Emmett Carson, Samuel Johnson, Dan'l Lewin, David P. Lopez, Erik Dryburgh
The Silicon Valley Community Foundation Must Stop Funding Islamist Hate Groups
In 2008-15, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) provided eight donations totaling $330,524 to two extremist organizations. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) received five donations totaling $132,933. Islamic Relief received three donations totaling $197,591. We differentiate between Islam and Islamism. American Muslims are an important part of our country; but Islamists pursue an extreme political ideology with no real mandate from ordinary Muslims. Islamists such as those running CAIR and Islamic Relief encourage hatred against women, Jews, Christians, the LGBTQ community, and Muslims belonging to minority sects. Islamists radicalize Muslims in the United States and fund jihadi violence abroad. CAIR and Islamic Relief duplicitously employ liberal rhetoric in their pursuit of illiberal ideas, sometimes successfully duping politicians, journalists, academics, and philanthropists. The Middle East Forum and its allies oppose all funding of Islamist organizations because this money both legitimizes Islamists as the voice of America’s Muslims and betrays those moderate Muslims working to free their faith from the grip of hatred and extremism. SVCF is the largest community foundation in the United States. With over 8 billion dollars in assets under management, it is the go-to charitable organization for some of America's wealthiest philanthropists. Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, made a $500 million dollar donation to the foundation in 2013. America's largest community foundation and its philanthropic partners should not support organizations that promulgate extremism both here and abroad. We the undersigned call upon the SVCF to immediately stop all funding of extremist groups, including CAIR and Islamic Relief. Appendix 1: What Are CAIR and Islamic Relief? CAIR was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. The FBI has banned outreach with CAIR since 2008. In 2014, the United Arab Emirates, a pious Muslim country, designated CAIR a terrorist organization. The Anti-Defamation League accuses CAIR of promoting anti-Jewish sentiment. Six CAIR leaders have been arrested, convicted, or deported for terrorism-related crimes: Randall (“Ismail”) Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Bassem Khafagi, Rabih Haddad, Nabil Sadoun, and Muthanna Al-Hanooti. Islamic Relief is the largest Islamic charity in America and the Western world, reporting an income of about $110 million in 2014. But it is a designated terrorist entity in Israel and the UAE. Banks such as UBS and HSBC have closed Islamic Relief bank accounts over concerns about terrorism financing. Appendix 2: Examples of CAIR and Islamic Relief Hate Speakers Siraj Wahhaj is a former member of CAIR’s advisory board and one of CAIR’s most regular speakers. LGTBQ: “I don't believe any of you are homosexual. This is a disease of this society. … you know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to, kill them both.” Infidels: “Woe to the Muslims who pick kafirs [a derogatory Arabic word meaning non-Muslims] for friends. … Take not into your intimacy those outside of your race. They will not fail to corrupt you. Don't you know our children are surrounded by kafirs. I'm telling you, making the hearts of our children corrupt, dirty, foul.” Hussain Kamani is a Deobandi preacher who has spoken at multiple Islamic Relief events. Sex slavery and adultery: Kamani explains that Muslim men may fulfill any sexual desires “with a female slave that belongs to him.” Those who commit adultery or have sex outside of marriage, he asserts, must be “stoned to death.” When Muslim husbands are learning to “train their wives,” beating them is allowed as a “last measure.” Abdul Nasir Jangda, also from the Deobandi sect, has been promoted and given platforms by both Islamic Relief and CAIR. Non-consensual sex: Detailed notes published by Jangda's students indicate that he defends the use of female sex slaves and justifies marital rape: “The thing to understand is that the husband has his set of divinely given rights one of which is the right to have his physical desires satisfied.” Death penalty: He advocates the killing of apostates and adulterers. Omar Suleiman is one of the most frequent speakers at CAIR and Islamic Relief events. Honor killings: “Sisters ... you know what happens with a really jealous Dad? He kills you and he kills the guy. You are offending Allah ... whenever you make yourself promiscuous or you open yourself up to a relationship.” Homosexuality: “When Allah describes homosexuality as a repugnant shameless sin and details his punishment of a people that practiced sodomy, how can anyone who believes in Allah not find it immoral? … If as Muslims we don't take a clear stance on this, we will be forced to conform and watch this disease destroy our children.” Muzammil Siddiqi is chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America and the religious director at the Islamic Society of Orange County. He works closely with CAIR and often speaks at its events. Homosexuality: He publicly supports the death penalty for homosexuals. Hassan Shibly is a CAIR staffer, the head of its Florida office. Homosexuality: He expresses hatred for the LGBT community, as in this tweet where he says homosexuality is a quick way “to earn God’s wrath.” Jamal Badawi is a recent board member of CAIR’s Canada branch and a popular speaker at CAIR events in the United States. Homosexuality: Its spread is a sign of the “End Times.” Marital violence: Men have the right to beat their wives.
Petition to Mayor Steve Sexton
Burlington City Council and Mayor: Say No to Marijuana Retail Store in Burlington, WA
Concerned Burlington Parents are against the LOCATION of the proposed Marijuana Retail Store "HYPEHERBALLY" in Burlington, WA. RUIZ & ASSOCIATES INC, has filed an application for a Retailer/Medical marijuana license. Location: 989 S Burlington, WA 98233 In front of Fred Meyer and next to Martha's Bridal and only 194 feet from Grafton Park . License No. 42232. The location for this proposed marijuana store is poorly conceived and ill advised given the large number of vulnerable and impressionable children and young people who visit many of the businesses and public entities in the area. Here are some of the places that our kids frequent on a daily basis: - Fred Meyer- Martha's Bridal and Formal Wear- Sinzero photo and Video- Dollar Tree Store- Target- Grafton Park- Cascade Mall- Iglesia Apostolica de La fe en Cristo Jesus, etc. Given the significant number of both private and public venues located in the immediate proximity of the proposed site that are visited regularly by our children and young people, it is a matter of common sense and civic decency to vigorously oppose the opening of a marijuana retail shop at this location. The City of Burlington needs to hear your voices! Please sign our petition and say NO to our city planner, council and Mayor, keep our children safe and drug free now and in the future! We also encourage you to send your concerns to the Mayor, City Council members and the WA Licensing and Regulation Division board Burlington Mayor Steve Sexton, Burlington. (360) 755.0531 firstname.lastname@example.org Burlington City Council 833 S. Spruce St.Burlington, WA 98233Phone:360-755-0531Fax:360-755-9565 Aslett, Bill, Councilman 360-755-0531Bieche, Tonya, Councilwoman 360-755-0531DeGloria, Joe, Councilman 360-755-0531DeGloria, Rick, Councilman 360-755-0531Edmundson, Edie, Councilwoman 360-755-0531Loving, Chris, Councilman 360-755-0531Montgomery, Ted, Councilman 360-755-0531 WSLCB LICENSING AND REGULATION DIVISION3000 PACIFIC AVE SE.P.O. BOX 43075OLYMPIA, WA, 98504-3075 Thank you for your support!
Petition to Smoke Free Sikeston, Sikeston Community
Support Smokefree in Indoor Workplaces and Public Places in Sikeston
Everyone has the right to breathe smokefree air in public places and at work without the dangers of secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is harmful, containing more than 7,000 chemicals including over 60 that can cause cancer. The health risks associated with secondhand smoke outweigh any argument about the right to smoke or the right for a business to allow smoking. Clean air regulations are merely an extension of existing laws regulating food safety and clean water. No one should have to risk their health to earn a paycheck. Everyone has the right to breathe smokefree air. Encouraging businesses to voluntarily go smokefree (a free-market approach), leaves many workers unprotected. Studies all over the world have shown that smokefree laws do not hurt businesses. In many cases, smokefree laws have a positive economic impact. Smokefree laws can save employers money on health care, lost wages, as well as cleaning costs of facilities. 34 Missouri communities have already recognized the positive impact that smokefree laws can have in a community. Here is a list of communities in Missouri that have moved forward and protected employees and consumers by going 100% smoke-free indoors. Isn't it time for Sikeston to do the same? There is no risk free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Air cleaners, ventilation systems and separate smoking and non-smoking areas may remove odors, but they do not eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke. The only way to protect all workers and the public from exposure to secondhand smoke is through strong smokefree laws that include all indoor workplaces and public places with no exemptions. Exemptions for certain business create confusion and make enforcement difficult. Patrons and business owners can't be sure of who is covered under the law and who is not. A simple, strong, and fair law is self-enforcing because everyone understands that all indoor workplaces and public places must be smokefree.
Petition to Warren Kampf, Sarah Hermans
Close the PA Dangerous Dog Loophole and Protect Children
In the summer of 2016, our eight-year-old son was viciously attacked and bitten multiple times in the face by a neighbor’s dog without provocation. This picture was taken a week before the attack that left a portion of his upper lip hanging, split open and torn from his face. His lower lip was split straight through and shredded by the dog’s teeth. His nose and cheek were punctured. The dog’s teeth just missed the labial artery and left it exposed. Had it been severed, this attack could have been far more serious. General anesthesia and hours of cosmetic surgery were required. He was left with facial scars and deformed lips. The dog was not determined to be a dangerous dog under PA law because of a loophole. As a result, the neighborhood is left unprotected and our son is forced to see his attacker unmuzzled on a regular basis. The Pennsylvania Dog Law is defective. The judge hearing the case found beyond a reasonable doubt that this dog attack was unprovoked and caused severe injury. However, the case resulted in a not guilty verdict. In PA, getting a dog declared as dangerous requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the dog has a ‘vicious propensity’ in addition to proving the attack was unprovoked and caused severe injury. While the law states that the incident itself “may” prove vicious propensity (to attack), the lack of clarity in the law leaves a loophole. The dog owners can exploit it because a single attack causing severe injury without provocation does not legally guarantee such vicious propensity.Some people have commented that it's just a bad ruling by the judge. If one judge can get it so wrong, this can and will happen again. Imagine if a rape verdict required proving not only the actual rape, but also a propensity to rape. After hearing witnesses on behalf of the rapist testify that they were not raped and that the rapist was always nice to them and their family, the judge finds the rapist not guilty. It is absurd. One rape is enough. Just like one unprovoked attack causing severe injury should be enough too. The law needs the "may" removed from it so that a fair verdict is certain. To be clear, this is not about punishing or putting the dog down. A guilty verdict is required to make the owners, whose dogs commit these acts, take reasonable precautions. By supporting this cause, you agree that a single unprovoked attack causing severe injury is enough. The courts shouldn’t wonder about how to interpret ‘vicious propensity’. A dog that does this once has already proven that it has the vicious propensity to do it again. Protections are required by the Dangerous Dog Law when there is a guilt verdict. Owners of a dangerous dog are required to post a warning sign, muzzle the dog when out in public, maintain bonding for the medical expenses should there be a next victim, construct a proper enclosure to protect people from the dog, and register the dog with the state so that no unsuspecting family adopts the dog in the future without being warned about its history. Please let your state representatives and state senators know you care about the safety of children and neighborhoods. No one should have to feel unsafe in their own neighborhood!
Petition to Liam McLaughlin, Christopher Johnson, Corazon Pineda Isaac, Michael Sabatino, Dennis Shepherd, Mike Breen, John Larkin
Reject the landmark status application for 2 Grandview Blvd, Yonkers, NY
April 2016 Dear Council President McLaughlin and Council Members Johnson, Isaac, Sabatino, Shepherd, Breen and Larkin: Like you, I am a proud Yonkers resident. Yonkers is my community, the place I have chosen to raise my family, and where I do my best daily to be a productive citizen and a good neighbor. I believe in being law abiding and civically engaged, and like all other residents, I expect to be treated fairly by those in elected office who represent all members of the community, majority and minority voices alike. On April 6th, 2016, there was a decision by the Landmark Preservation Board to recommend the approval of a landmark status application on 2 Grandview Blvd, the site for a proposed Mosque, a house of worship for Muslims. Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam is part of the Abrahamic faith and requires those that subscribe to its faith to perform acts of worship like prayer, fasting, and charity giving. However, the approved Landmark application sets an undue burden in cost and time delays on the construction of the Mosque. It is also a heavy imposition on the legal protections of the landowners of the property, who bought the completely deteriorated home after years on the market without any interest from the rest of the community. Additionally, the application is extremely weak; even the historian member of the Landmark Preservation Board openly admitted that the application fails on just about every criterion and the one criterion it deemed passing was not certain. To make matters worse, there is strong reason to believe that some of the opposition to the construction of the Mosque stems from baseless and biased personal opinions of Muslims. Disgracefully, some discriminatory remarks were made at the initial public hearing. Now the matter is to be decided by you, our elected Council Members. I respectfully request and very strongly urge you reject the landmark status application. By rejecting the application you will uphold the legal right of all citizens, including Muslims in our community, to have a place of worship without any further hindrance. By rejecting the landmark application, you will be firmly asserting your commitment to the principles of freedom of religion and equality that make Yonkers, and our nation, a place deserving of admiration by both you and I, and future generations to come. Sincerely,
Petition to Dirk Rohne (Clatsop County Commissioner), Scott Lee, Lisa J. Clement, Sarah Nebeker, Lianne Thompson, Clatsop County Board of Commissioners, Heather Hansen, Cameron Moore
KEEP CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN ARCH CAPE-FALCON COVE BEACH
We respectfully ask the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners to reverse its decision to dissolve the Southwest Coastal Community Advisory Committee (SCCAC, aka SWCCAC). Please meet with and work with the concerned and engaged citizens of Arch Cape, Falcon Cove Beach, and the entire Southwest Coastal Community to keep the important aspects of the SCCAC and allow for continued citizen involvement in our region of the County. For more than 40 years, the SCCAC has worked actively and persistently to maintain the Southwest Coastal Community’s livability, natural resources and beauty. In the 1970’s the SCCAC help draft the Southwest Coastal Community’s Comprehensive Plan. This Plan guides development in the Southwest Coastal Community by protecting our beaches, headlands, streams, wetlands, forestlands, and Highway 101 from improper development. The Plan was progressive for its time and remains a guiding document for the community and our land use ordinances. The SCCAC provides the opportunity for local people to advise the County on proposed developments, provides critical local knowledge, and helps to ensure that developments are done properly and in the best interest of the community. Without the SCCAC and the Plan, we believe that the Southwest Coastal Community could look much different today. The entire Highway 101 corridor could become a commercial strip like Rockaway Beach. Ocean front homes could be three stories high like in other communities, blocking the view of everyone living behind them and changing the natural feel of our glorious beach. All vacant lots could be cleared of trees and natural vegetation leaving our neighborhoods void of the remarkably lush coastal rainforest in which we live. The SCCAC and its Plan are the core of our community. We do not understand why, after all these years of the SCCAC working selflessly to protect the resident and communities of the Southwest Coastal region of Clatsop County, that the BOC was so determined to dissolve the SCCAC against the wishes of the residents of the community, and with little opportunity to hear public comment and deliberate. And why dissolve a citizen advisory committee, if a primary principle of Oregon’s planning goals is citizen involvement? As an unincorporated region of the county, citizen input is all the more important to provide appropriate representation. We are pledged to complying with the law and respecting our neighbors, and we strongly believe that the SCCAC can and should continue to play a role in advising the County regarding decisions affecting our area. Please work with us. (Information sources include "Tunnel Echoes" - thank you)
Petition to North Charleston City Council
Reinstate Live Video feed of public comments at North Charleston City Council meetings
Until April 13, 2017, North Charleston City Council meetings have been available via live video feed and archived video for the entirety of each meeting, including public comments. On April 13th, the video feed was turned off when the public comment section began. We are concerned about the lack of transparency resulting from this change. Residents of North Charleston have a right to speak to City Council at public meetings, and their comments ought to be included, without editing, as part of the public record. While we understand that our comments may make you and others watching uncomfortable or defensive, the opinions offered by residents often come from a place of deep frustration, and it is important to allow this discourse. We insist that City Council: Reinstate the live video feed of the entirety of North Charleston City Council meetings, including public comments, on April 27, 2017. Provide current, accurate, and unbiased data for any "fact-checking." Provide time for citizen speakers to respond to your fact-checking. Time set aside for fact-checking should not encroach on the usual time provided for public comments.
Petition to Darryl Bertani
The residents of Kerber Farms, Dartmoor Estates and beyond do not want a cell phone tower!
North Huntingdon residents in the neighborhoods of Kerber Farms, Dartmoor Estates and the surrounding Sunset Valley area respectfully ask the North Huntingdon Board of Commisioners to deny the request by cell phone companies to build a cell phone tower near Thoroughbred and Halfinger Drives. We oppose the cell phone tower on the grounds that it will reduce property values of the surrounding homes. We also oppose due to the numerous studies done on the possible health risks and increased cancer rates associated with the towers. Many of us found out about this tower from local news reports. We believe that we should have been notified via mail by the Board of Commisioners or Verizon that a tower was being proposed in our area and, therefore, given the opportunity to voice our concerns appropriately. Given that some individuals will not be able to attend this week's meeting on such short notice, we are creating a petition in order to voice our concern and displeasure with this cell tower. We urge you to deny the request to build this cell tower in our neighborhood!