Petition Tag - sponsor
1. Michelle Obama Please Visit Black Jack, MO! Support Build A Body Kid's Fitness
Each fall, Christian Embassy Church (CEC) in Black Jack, Missouri hosts an annual community fundraiser for a nationally recognized charity organization suitably named Harvest Fest. In years past, CEC has raised funds for United Service Organizations (USO), American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association just to name a few.
The monies raised total into the thousands. This year's charity recipient is a local non-profit organization, Buid A Body Kid's Fitness, Inc.. As many people know, the child obesity epidemic in America is at an increasingly staggering level and its correction is a major focus of our First Lady, Michelle Obama.
In an effort to attract Mrs. Obama's recognition of our support towards the elimination of this nationwide problem and to invite her to Harvest Fest, we are asking for your signature which will be sent to The White House for review.
The monies raised total into the thousands. This year's charity recipient is a local non-profit organization, Buid A Body Kid's Fitness, Inc.. As many people know, the child obesity epidemic in America is at an increasingly staggering level and its correction is a major focus of our First Lady, Michelle Obama.
In an effort to attract Mrs. Obama's recognition of our support towards the elimination of this nationwide problem and to invite her to Harvest Fest, we are asking for your signature which will be sent to The White House for review.
2. STOP using the term "adopt" in relation to animals
The generally accepted definition of the word "adopt" as it applies to children is:
"To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child."
Whereas the definition of the word "sponsor" as it might apply to an endangered species is:
"A person or group that provides funds for an activity, esp. a person or group who donates money to a charity when the chairty requesting the donation has performed a specified activity as part of an organized fund-raising effort."
So by this very simple example it would be quite possible to sponsor a child in say China through organisations such as Hope4China or the Goodrock Foundation.
It is also possible, after much soul-searching, bureaucratic process and financial support to actually adopt a child from countries such as China or Thailand (http://www.dcfs.gov.uk).
But, it would be wholly inappropriate, not to say insulting to adopted children around the world, to seek to raise funds for the welfare and protection of say snow leopards, rhinos or pandas by asking people to “adopt” these animals; quite clearly you would not be taking them into your families and raising them as your own children – you would simply be sponsoring them a few pounds/dollars a month. And in doing so helping a worthy cause and hard working charity.
In 2006 our family was blessed with the adoption of a baby girl from China and 4 years later she herself is sponsoring a panda in China.
So please find it in your heart to support this very worthy petition and help children who have already suffered separation, loss and abandonment to regain some self-esteem by not being compared to the feeding and protection of animals.
"To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child."
Whereas the definition of the word "sponsor" as it might apply to an endangered species is:
"A person or group that provides funds for an activity, esp. a person or group who donates money to a charity when the chairty requesting the donation has performed a specified activity as part of an organized fund-raising effort."
So by this very simple example it would be quite possible to sponsor a child in say China through organisations such as Hope4China or the Goodrock Foundation.
It is also possible, after much soul-searching, bureaucratic process and financial support to actually adopt a child from countries such as China or Thailand (http://www.dcfs.gov.uk).
But, it would be wholly inappropriate, not to say insulting to adopted children around the world, to seek to raise funds for the welfare and protection of say snow leopards, rhinos or pandas by asking people to “adopt” these animals; quite clearly you would not be taking them into your families and raising them as your own children – you would simply be sponsoring them a few pounds/dollars a month. And in doing so helping a worthy cause and hard working charity.
In 2006 our family was blessed with the adoption of a baby girl from China and 4 years later she herself is sponsoring a panda in China.
So please find it in your heart to support this very worthy petition and help children who have already suffered separation, loss and abandonment to regain some self-esteem by not being compared to the feeding and protection of animals.
3. Telstra and Network Ten to Sponsor NBL
THE National Basketball League faces a television black-out by pay television partner Fox Sports after losing both the Sydney Kings and Brisbane Bullets to financial problems.
Similarly Hummer, a division of General Motors, is reviewing its position as the league's naming-rights sponsor with the NBL now reduced to just 11 teams, and with West Sydney's shift to Penrith, has no major presence in the harbour city.
A spokesman for Premier Media Group chief executive David Malone said the network was awaiting a new season schedule of matches before any final decision was made on broadcasting matches next season.
Harmison is looking to the Henderson Report, a commercial review due to be presented to the NBL to provide some guidance on how to avoid more teams falling over.
"What I expect to come out of the investigation is to have criteria set in place that will allow the teams to be a fighting chance of breaking even or turning a profit," he said.
"Whether you call it a franchising agreement or a licensing agreement, we need to develop a set of criteria that is going to stop the boom-and-bust cycle we've had over the last 30 years.
"Our sport has seen a number of teams come and go, be successful for a couple of years and then fall over.
"Whether it's due to mismanagement, or under-management or a lack of resources, we need to get to a stage where we don't have that any more.
Harmison is working on a revised draw which is to be released at the end of this month.
"But it's a fact of life and we've got to live with it. The teams that are remaining in the league are strong. They're going to play some great basketball."
Harmison said the NBL had held high hopes for both the proposed ownership groups for the Kings, but ultimately when it came to crunch time, both failed to produce the necessary backing to proceed.
"The league did make a last-ditch attempt when it became apparent that both bids were faltering to bring the two groups together, but those efforts have been in vain."
"It's a sad day for Sydney basketball fans that's for sure, but at the end of the day the two bids didn't stack up financially."
"What we needed from the group that remained at the end of the day was a financial or bank guarantee and that wasn't forthcoming."
The Kings had their licence revoked last month after failing to meet overdue player payments while Brisbane owner Eddy Groves handed in the Bullets' licence after running into financial difficulty and failing to find another backer.
Similarly Hummer, a division of General Motors, is reviewing its position as the league's naming-rights sponsor with the NBL now reduced to just 11 teams, and with West Sydney's shift to Penrith, has no major presence in the harbour city.
A spokesman for Premier Media Group chief executive David Malone said the network was awaiting a new season schedule of matches before any final decision was made on broadcasting matches next season.
Harmison is looking to the Henderson Report, a commercial review due to be presented to the NBL to provide some guidance on how to avoid more teams falling over.
"What I expect to come out of the investigation is to have criteria set in place that will allow the teams to be a fighting chance of breaking even or turning a profit," he said.
"Whether you call it a franchising agreement or a licensing agreement, we need to develop a set of criteria that is going to stop the boom-and-bust cycle we've had over the last 30 years.
"Our sport has seen a number of teams come and go, be successful for a couple of years and then fall over.
"Whether it's due to mismanagement, or under-management or a lack of resources, we need to get to a stage where we don't have that any more.
Harmison is working on a revised draw which is to be released at the end of this month.
"But it's a fact of life and we've got to live with it. The teams that are remaining in the league are strong. They're going to play some great basketball."
Harmison said the NBL had held high hopes for both the proposed ownership groups for the Kings, but ultimately when it came to crunch time, both failed to produce the necessary backing to proceed.
"The league did make a last-ditch attempt when it became apparent that both bids were faltering to bring the two groups together, but those efforts have been in vain."
"It's a sad day for Sydney basketball fans that's for sure, but at the end of the day the two bids didn't stack up financially."
"What we needed from the group that remained at the end of the day was a financial or bank guarantee and that wasn't forthcoming."
The Kings had their licence revoked last month after failing to meet overdue player payments while Brisbane owner Eddy Groves handed in the Bullets' licence after running into financial difficulty and failing to find another backer.
4. Support SOS
SOS is a charity, that has an annual funfair, and holds jumbo sales. It buys acres of rainforest, so that animals can continue to live there. It also sponsors animals.
5. Fair and Equal Access to San Anselmo Street Banners
The Town of San Anselmo is proposing to adopt an ordinance that will make the across-the-street banners on Drake and Tunstead and the Hub sign available only to those who have political "pull." The banners and Hub sign are valuable, precious community resources, and they should be made available on a fair and equitable basis to qualified organizations.
There is a Town Council meeting at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 28, at 110 Shaw Drive, behind Safeway. Please sign this petition, and appear at the Town Council meeting to voice your opposition to this unfair ordinance.
Background
For many years, the Town of San Anselmo allowed organizations to advertise “charitable and civic events” on two street banners across Sir Francis Drake Blvd. and Tunstead Ave., and on a sign at the Hub. The street banners and Hub sign were used by most organizations in Town, including the Stapleton Ballet Nutcracker, the Ross Valley School District Yes! Foundation, the Drake Pirate Pancake Breakfast, the Sleepy Hollow Kitchen Tour, the San Anselmo Baseball Association, Lower Brookside Octoberfest, Manor School Winter Faire, the Chamber of Commerce Art and Design Festival and many, many others.
In October 2005, the Town administration approved the display of a street banner for a political campaign (“Yes on Measure B”). Since the Town’s ordinance permitted banners only for “events”, this political campaign sign clearly violated the ordinance. The Town administration allowed it anyway, presumably because the Yes on Measure B Committee was composed of Town Councilmembers. The Yes on Measure B banner was followed by another political banner (“Yes on 73”).
Adoption and Administration of the Emergency Ordinance
In response to many public complaints about these political banners, in November 2005, the Town Council adopted an emergency ordinance prohibiting all parties, other than the Town government itself, from erecting street banners and Hub signs.
In short order, the Town administration violated this ordinance as well. Over the course of the last year, street banners have been displayed by several organizations that are not part of the Town government. These included banners for an organic Farm Stand (a commercial enterprise), Girls on the Run (an event in Tiburon), the San Anselmo Baseball Association (an independent association that is not affiliated with the Town government), and a Fairfax Haunted House (produced by the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce). Each of these banners, displayed with the express approval of the Town administration, violated the emergency ordinance, which limits banners to Town government messages only.
In the meantime, other community organizations saw that the Town was allowing numerous non-Town street banners and signs. When these organizations asked for banner space, their requests were denied, for no valid reason. In addition to violating the Town’s own emergency ordinance, it is patently unfair, not to mention unconstitutional, that the Town administration is able to pick and choose which banners to display.
The Proposed New Ordinance
The Town administration has now proposed a new permanent ordinance, which is similar to the failed emergency ordinance. In the new ordinance, banners are permitted “to promote special events of which the Town is either the sponsor or a co-sponsor.”
The terms “sponsor” and “co-sponsor” are not defined. Is it sufficient for the Town administration to simply say that the Town is a sponsor or co-sponsor? Or does the Town have to contribute any funds or staff time in order for an event to count as a sponsorship or co-sponsorship? Does the Town have to be named as a sponsor or co-sponsor in any publicity materials, or can the Town administration simply agree to be a “silent” co-sponsor?
In addition, there is no indication of who would decide on behalf of the Town whether or not to sponsor or co-sponsor an event. Would it be the Town Council? A Town Commission? Any Town staff member?
And what is the criteria for determining whether to sponsor or co-sponsor an event? Will the Town look at the content of the proposed banner to see whether it is acceptable to the Town? Will the Town look at the organization, and make some determination as to whether that organization’s views and policies fit with the Town government’s view of politics?
The proposed ordinance is flawed in the same way as the emergency ordinance. There are no objective standards as to who can display a banner and who cannot. If a group has “pull” within the Town government, it can request that the Town be a “co-sponsor” of the event. If the Town administration agrees, then the group can use the banner space. If, however, the Town administration decides for whatever reason not to “co-sponsor” the event, then the banner space is not available.
Because the banner space is a public forum created by the government, any right by the government to control access to that forum based on the content of the banner or the organization is clearly an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. Under the proposed ordinance, the Town government is allowed to grant or deny access to a valuable public resource, street banner space, based on the content of the banner’s message or the group displaying the street banner. If the proposed ordinance is adopted, the Town would be opened up to fair criticism by any group that did not receive “co-sponsorship” and therefore was denied banner space by the Town administration.
In addition, it is unfair to the community to allow some groups with political pull to get to use this extremely valuable community resource, but then deny its use by others.
The Town administration believes the proposed banner ordinance is legal and constitutional based on a recent court of appeals case. However, the ordinance at issue in that case is dramatically different from the one proposed by the Town. The Town cannot rely on that court case to claim that the proposed banner ordinance is legal and constitutional.
The Citizen’s Sign Committee Recommendation
In January 2006, the Town Council convened a Citizen’s Sign Committee, a group of 21 residents and business owners, to study signage issues. The Sign Committee debated the street banner issues for hours. After several months of weekly meetings, the Sign Committee recommended to the Town Council that street banners and the Hub sign be permitted for the following purposes:
Town-sponsored events, Ross Valley accredited schools, Ross Valley youth organized sporting and cultural events, and 501(c)(6) [chamber of commerce] status for Ross Valley businesses.
What we are seeking
We are simply asking that the Town Council adopt the recommendations of the Citizen’s Sign Committee. Banner space should be allocated on a fair and equal basis to all organizations that meet objective criteria. The banner space is an extremely valuable and precious community resource that should be made generally available to the community, not just to a select few who have political pull.
There is a Town Council meeting at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 28, at 110 Shaw Drive, behind Safeway. Please sign this petition, and appear at the Town Council meeting to voice your opposition to this unfair ordinance.
Background
For many years, the Town of San Anselmo allowed organizations to advertise “charitable and civic events” on two street banners across Sir Francis Drake Blvd. and Tunstead Ave., and on a sign at the Hub. The street banners and Hub sign were used by most organizations in Town, including the Stapleton Ballet Nutcracker, the Ross Valley School District Yes! Foundation, the Drake Pirate Pancake Breakfast, the Sleepy Hollow Kitchen Tour, the San Anselmo Baseball Association, Lower Brookside Octoberfest, Manor School Winter Faire, the Chamber of Commerce Art and Design Festival and many, many others.
In October 2005, the Town administration approved the display of a street banner for a political campaign (“Yes on Measure B”). Since the Town’s ordinance permitted banners only for “events”, this political campaign sign clearly violated the ordinance. The Town administration allowed it anyway, presumably because the Yes on Measure B Committee was composed of Town Councilmembers. The Yes on Measure B banner was followed by another political banner (“Yes on 73”).
Adoption and Administration of the Emergency Ordinance
In response to many public complaints about these political banners, in November 2005, the Town Council adopted an emergency ordinance prohibiting all parties, other than the Town government itself, from erecting street banners and Hub signs.
In short order, the Town administration violated this ordinance as well. Over the course of the last year, street banners have been displayed by several organizations that are not part of the Town government. These included banners for an organic Farm Stand (a commercial enterprise), Girls on the Run (an event in Tiburon), the San Anselmo Baseball Association (an independent association that is not affiliated with the Town government), and a Fairfax Haunted House (produced by the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce). Each of these banners, displayed with the express approval of the Town administration, violated the emergency ordinance, which limits banners to Town government messages only.
In the meantime, other community organizations saw that the Town was allowing numerous non-Town street banners and signs. When these organizations asked for banner space, their requests were denied, for no valid reason. In addition to violating the Town’s own emergency ordinance, it is patently unfair, not to mention unconstitutional, that the Town administration is able to pick and choose which banners to display.
The Proposed New Ordinance
The Town administration has now proposed a new permanent ordinance, which is similar to the failed emergency ordinance. In the new ordinance, banners are permitted “to promote special events of which the Town is either the sponsor or a co-sponsor.”
The terms “sponsor” and “co-sponsor” are not defined. Is it sufficient for the Town administration to simply say that the Town is a sponsor or co-sponsor? Or does the Town have to contribute any funds or staff time in order for an event to count as a sponsorship or co-sponsorship? Does the Town have to be named as a sponsor or co-sponsor in any publicity materials, or can the Town administration simply agree to be a “silent” co-sponsor?
In addition, there is no indication of who would decide on behalf of the Town whether or not to sponsor or co-sponsor an event. Would it be the Town Council? A Town Commission? Any Town staff member?
And what is the criteria for determining whether to sponsor or co-sponsor an event? Will the Town look at the content of the proposed banner to see whether it is acceptable to the Town? Will the Town look at the organization, and make some determination as to whether that organization’s views and policies fit with the Town government’s view of politics?
The proposed ordinance is flawed in the same way as the emergency ordinance. There are no objective standards as to who can display a banner and who cannot. If a group has “pull” within the Town government, it can request that the Town be a “co-sponsor” of the event. If the Town administration agrees, then the group can use the banner space. If, however, the Town administration decides for whatever reason not to “co-sponsor” the event, then the banner space is not available.
Because the banner space is a public forum created by the government, any right by the government to control access to that forum based on the content of the banner or the organization is clearly an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. Under the proposed ordinance, the Town government is allowed to grant or deny access to a valuable public resource, street banner space, based on the content of the banner’s message or the group displaying the street banner. If the proposed ordinance is adopted, the Town would be opened up to fair criticism by any group that did not receive “co-sponsorship” and therefore was denied banner space by the Town administration.
In addition, it is unfair to the community to allow some groups with political pull to get to use this extremely valuable community resource, but then deny its use by others.
The Town administration believes the proposed banner ordinance is legal and constitutional based on a recent court of appeals case. However, the ordinance at issue in that case is dramatically different from the one proposed by the Town. The Town cannot rely on that court case to claim that the proposed banner ordinance is legal and constitutional.
The Citizen’s Sign Committee Recommendation
In January 2006, the Town Council convened a Citizen’s Sign Committee, a group of 21 residents and business owners, to study signage issues. The Sign Committee debated the street banner issues for hours. After several months of weekly meetings, the Sign Committee recommended to the Town Council that street banners and the Hub sign be permitted for the following purposes:
Town-sponsored events, Ross Valley accredited schools, Ross Valley youth organized sporting and cultural events, and 501(c)(6) [chamber of commerce] status for Ross Valley businesses.
What we are seeking
We are simply asking that the Town Council adopt the recommendations of the Citizen’s Sign Committee. Banner space should be allocated on a fair and equal basis to all organizations that meet objective criteria. The banner space is an extremely valuable and precious community resource that should be made generally available to the community, not just to a select few who have political pull.
6. We want Lionel to Sponsor Little League Baseball again
Lionel once was a major sponsor of Little League Baseball, unfortunatly in 2000 they stopped sponsoring Little League Baseball, we feel that Lionel is the best sponsor for Little League Baseball. It would be great to bring back Little League themed sets and accesories. It would be welcoming to see a Lionel layout on display at Williamsport in 2004.
It would be so generous of "NASCAR" to 'sponsor' one of it's own.
I'd like to see "corporate" NASCAR sponsor perhaps some struggling team with a ride. Sporting a patriotic logo, paintsceme, or theme.
i.e.(The Stars and Stripes-God Bless America car.)
Maybe they could even make a contest out of it!!!
I'd like to see "corporate" NASCAR sponsor perhaps some struggling team with a ride. Sporting a patriotic logo, paintsceme, or theme.
i.e.(The Stars and Stripes-God Bless America car.)
Maybe they could even make a contest out of it!!!
8. Immigration to the USA - Modify I-864 Affidavit of Support
Petition for fairness in Immigration Procedures to update I-864 Affidavit of Support to allow work authorization (EAD)without requirement of financial sponsorship!
I'm not able to work because my spouse has a disability and is on a fixed income which is below the required poverty guidelines. This creates an impass or barrier which is extremely difficult to conquer. I cannot file I-485 Adjustment of Status without a financial sponsor that we cannot find.
Since, we have come across many similar situations with other immigrants having this particular problem, we are petitioning for modification/waiver of I-864 Affidavit of Support in such conditions where a person is unable to provide previous tax records or sponsor due to disability/illness.
I'm not able to work because my spouse has a disability and is on a fixed income which is below the required poverty guidelines. This creates an impass or barrier which is extremely difficult to conquer. I cannot file I-485 Adjustment of Status without a financial sponsor that we cannot find.
Since, we have come across many similar situations with other immigrants having this particular problem, we are petitioning for modification/waiver of I-864 Affidavit of Support in such conditions where a person is unable to provide previous tax records or sponsor due to disability/illness.