366 petitions

Started 1 day ago

Petition to , The Walt Disney Company

Boycott Disney over not including speaking part for President Trump in Hall of Presidents.

I am starting this petition to inform Disney that there are many people that want to see President Donald Trump speak in The Hall of Presidents attraction at The Magic Kingdom. It appears there is a petition trying to discourage Disney from including a speaking part for President Trump in this patriotic attraction. I find this to be absurd. When I read this headline, I was in disbelief. This attraction has given every president a speaking part since 1993. Donald Trump is the President whether anyone likes it or not. Denial of history sets a terrible precedence. I take my family on this attraction because I have always enjoyed the sense of patriotism that the ride displays. If our current president is not given the same respect as previous presidents(whether their decisions are controversial or not); I do not want to support this organization. Whether it be Disney or any other corporation; it is an absolute disgrace if Disney does not include our current President in a speaking part. I am sure a lot of fellow Americans can agree with me in saying this. After all he was elected President. The very least Disney could do is quote him saying "Make America Great Again." If this becomes finalized and Disney cannot give him a speaking part as they did Presidents for the last 24 years, I can no longer patronize them. I will choose another amusement park for my 4 children to enjoy. I do not want to have to answer to my kids asking why President Trump did not speak on the ride. For this reason I will boycott Disney if he is not given the same respect that previous presidents were given. America needs to unite and show support for our president, not be divisive. Please sign this petition if you are a patriot and want to see President Trump receive the respect he deserves from Disney.

Cheryl Soboleski
7 supporters
Update posted 1 day ago

Petition to Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider, City Council Member Cathy Murillo, Bendy White, City Council Member Bendy White, City Council Member Gregg Hart, City Council Member Randy Rowse, City Council Member Jason Dominguez

Santa Barbara Divest from DAPL #DivestSB

In November, 2016, City Council passed a resolution introduced by Santa Barbara Mayor Schneider declaring solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux tribe because of the threats posed to them by the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), and out of respect for local Chumash constituency calling for it. Now we the people call on Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider and City Council to stand by their words, stand by our local indigenous community, and by Santa Barbara's reputation as a national environmental leader, by divesting from Wells Fargo and Union Bank (owned by Tokyo-Mitsubishi). Wells Fargo and Union Bank's parent company Tokyo-Mitsubishi are both major financiers of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), an oil pipeline project that has destroyed sacred tribal lands, endangers the clean water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation and millions of Americans, and has resulted in human rights violations of indigenous peoples and water protectors. In addition to funding DAPL, Wells Fargo has also illegally foreclosed on working-class families, discriminated against people of color and low-income consumers, committed mortgage fraud. Union Bank's parent company Tokyo Mitsubishi has also committed acts of fraud and money laundering. We do not want our city supporting financial institutions that use their money to do such harm to people and planet.We are petitioning SB City Council to pass an ordinance to end the city’s relationship with Wells Fargo and Union Bank, and to develop a Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) policy that integrates social and environmental criteria when considering banking contracts.The City of Seattle recently achieved a landmark victory by divesting $3 billion from Wells Fargo, specifically highlighting the bank’s recent settlement with the City of LA and financing Dakota Access Pipeline. The City of Davis, CA followed suit by voting to divest $125 million from Wells Fargo. Los Angeles is currently moving toward divestment, and other cities are considering at this time as well. Cities all across the United States are strengthening socially responsible banking ordinances and divesting from unethical banks. We can no longer sit idle as our banks profit from injustice. The people are ready to take on the big banks and fossil fuel industry, regardless of who resides in the White House. Seattle was the first major city to divest. Santa Barbara will be next. We are calling on our elected city officials and all Santa Barbara residents to take a stand for a socially conscious and ethical world and divest all funds from DAPL. Stand with the people and protect the planet. Divest for our future.

Santa Barbara Standing Rock Coalition
130 supporters
Update posted 3 days ago

Petition to Timothy O. Horne, Norman Dong

GSA: End Trump lease on Old Post Office Hotel

Timothy O. Horne Acting Administrator General Services Administration Washington, DC Dear Administrator Horne:       We call upon you to fulfill your administrative duty and cancel the lease between Trump Old Post Office LLC  and the General Services Administration which concerns the Trump International Old Post Office Pavilion Hotel.  As you are aware, the lease contains a clause which states: “No ... elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom...”        Now that Donald J. Trump has been inaugurated as President of the United States, he is in default of the lease between the GSA and Trump Old Post Office LLC, inasmuch as Donald J. Trump is chairman, president, and majority stakeholder.      Two prominent legal experts on contract law, Professor Steven Schooner, Nash & Cibinic Professor of Government Procurement Law at the George Washington University Law School; and Daniel I. Gordon, senior advisor to G.W. University’s Government Procurement Law Program and former administrator for federal procurement policy, have recently written that if the current lease agreement remains in effect, President Trump will receive compensation from the federal government separate from his annual salary, which is prohibited by the Constitution.  Further, they write that:       “GSA employees handling the Trump lease will be caught between their duty to protect the interests of the building’s landlord—that is, the government, the public, and the taxpayers—and their duty of loyalty to the GSA administrator, who will be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of then-President Trump.”       Professor Schooner and Mr. Gordon conclude that “to protect the integrity of the federal government’s procurement process, GSA must end its lease arrangement with President-elect Trump now.”       In addition, Richard Painter, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, has stated on several major news broadcasts that President-elect Trump Organization must divest from all of the many businesses in which he is involved, including Trump hotels, that now receive, and will receive future income from foreign governments, foreign corporations owned in part or wholly by foreign governments, and representatives of any foreign governments.       Senators Elizabeth Warren and Tom Carper (Member, Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs) write in a letter to the GSA dated December 1, 2016 that:        “In a material term of the contract, GSA requires that no elected officials play a role in the agreement … However, once President-elect Trump assumes office, he will oversee GSA and have the authority to appoint a new GSA Administrator, which will effectively make President-elect Trump landlord and tenant at the same time.”       The Senators cite two provisions in the Constitution prohibiting the President from receiving additional “emoluments”—salaries, fees, or profits—from either the U.S. or foreign governments, to wit, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution, (which) states: “The President shall…receive for his Services, a Compensation…and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”     They also cite Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution—often referred to as the “Emoluments Clause”— which states: “And no Person holding any Office…shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument...of any kind whatever, from any...foreign State.”       The senators urge that: “GSA should immediately take steps to identify and mitigate any potential conflicts of interest relating to its lease agreement with President-elect Trump, including removing itself from the agreement to avoid any violations of law.”             It seems clear to us based on the legal positions expressed above that as leaseholder on the Old Post Office Pavilion Hotel, President Trump is now in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 and the Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution.       Since the Old Post Office Pavilion Hotel is an historic public property administered by the GSA, and thus the property of the American people, we believe you will best serve the interests of the people of the United States if you take whatever steps are necessary to cancel, breach, or otherwise end the contract between General Services Administration and Trump Old Post Office LLC as expeditiously as possible.   References:            

Gordon L. Magill
79 supporters