|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - federal
Though children are unexperienced at life, they are still people, intelligent people just like any of you. And at thirteen have learned enough to vote. Even if the price is getting a license to vote I do not care, I accept your conditions as long as you make our voices heard.
In early times, we did not even vote. In later times, only some men could, later all men could, then all women could, and now I believe we can make the world a better place for all of thirteen year old people are allowed, even as youth to have their voices heard.
Therefore, I ask that you consider lowering the voting age to thirteen.
"A complaint filed to the Department of Education requests a review into the actions of a University during a security situation to ensure the safety of its students. The Clery Act, passed by congress in 1990, was spearheaded by the SOC Inc. founders after the loss of their daughter, Jeanne Clery, who was raped and murdered in her dorm room Lehigh University in 1986.
If Virginia Tech is proven to be negligent in their safety precautions during the events of April 16, the university could be fined up to $27,500 and be barred from federal financial aid in the future.
According to the Virginia Tech website, over 60% of students use some form of financial aid, including aid opportunities given by the Department of Education.
Federal financial aid accounts for more than $80 million a year to 14 million applicants".- The Collegiate Times
This is a petition that will be given to SOC Inc. for their senseless act of filing a complaint against Virginia Tech.
We know as a community and institution that our university has investigated their security measures and has taken action to prevent future incidents.
As you can read above, this organization would rather prevent the operation of our school and see us suffer more than provide support.
The Six-Party denuclearization talks with North Korea halted earlier this year, because the US froze $25 million of accounts in Banco Delta Asia in Macau. The funds were frozen by the US Treasury Department because the funds in the accounts were believed to be obtained by counterfeiting US currency and other illicit activities.
So far, the Bank of China and Wachovia Bank have declined requests from the US State Department to transfer these funds back to North Korea.
State's newest request is for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to transfer the funds back to North Korea. Lee Bollinger is a Class C director on the board of directors.
Apart from aiding a regime that is one of the world's most egregious human rights violators, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York transfer would also be in violation of: Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, and Sections 1956-1957 of US Criminal Code, Title 18.
O VOTO ABERTO É UM DIREITO DO ELEITOR!
Sob o pensamento de que “Democracia se constrói com representação e transparência”, vários setores da sociedade têm, através de campanhas populares e até mesmo parlamentares de Assembléias legislativas e Câmara Federal, se empenhado ao máximo na condução do tema Voto Aberto, por meio de Abaixo-Assinado.
Abrir o voto dos deputados e dos senadores é permitir que o eleitor acompanhe as posições de seus representantes. É impedir que parlamentares votem contra a vontade da sociedade e se escondam no sigilo do voto, como está acontecendo nos últimos meses na Câmara dos Deputados.
O voto aberto não é, no entanto, garantia de bom voto. Mas, com certeza, nos permite colocar mais um tijolo nesta longa e difícil construção que é a democracia brasileira. Sabendo como votam os parlamentares em questões cruciais, é possível cobrar deles explicações e mudanças de posição. Só com a pressão da sociedade é que poderemos fazer com que o legislativo brasileiro desista de manter-se de costas para a vontade do eleitor.
Nós, da sociedade civil, estamos nos organizando em vários Estados, chmando a atenção do Legislativo para a instituição do VOTO ABERTO em todas as deliberações da Câmara, do Senado, do Congresso Nacional, das Assembléias Legislativas, da Câmara Legislativa do Distrito Federal e das Câmaras Municipais, de acordo com a PEC 349/01, aprovada por unanimidade em primeiro turno em setembro de 2006.
Na esperança que tínhamos em ser aprovada pela Câmara a matéria em questão, a mesma foi obstruida por fatos polítcos não menos importante mas, considerando a moralização no Congresso Nacional tão necessária neste País, urge a mobilização popular mais do que nunca para que o VOTO ABERTO seja instituído na esfera do Poder Legislativo Brasileiro.
TODO PODER EMANA DO POVO!
pagamento de nossos direitos trabalhistas ( salários, rescições contratuais, fgts ), não pagos pelos Dirigentes da TRANSBRASIL S/A LINHAS AÉREAS, e o devido recolhimento aos cofres públicos de nossas contribuições de INSS, IRPF recolhido e não encaminhado ao governo Federal.
Entre os projetos analisados, um chama a atenção pela singularidade do tema. Trata-se do PL nº 1.947/2005, de autoria do deputado Agrício Braga (suplente do PFL), que estabelece restrição à comercialização de jogos do tipo "RPG" no âmbito do Distrito Federal. O relator, deputado Aguinaldo de Jesus (PL), afirmou que os jogos de RPG são "perigosíssimos" e lembrou que há, no Congresso Nacional, um projeto de lei que torna crime inafiançável a prática da atividade. O PL foi aprovado e segue em tramitação.
cara olha o que eles fazem com nosso dinheiro !!nos os sustentamos pra isso?
eu acho que não,gente vamos mostrar pra eles que nao somos alienados,e que rpg e um jogo como tantos outros e se ja que querem proibir algo que proibao o senado e o tribunal federal de ganhar o teto salarial,afinal seus quase 24.000 sao mais que o suficiente..... e
37. Mothers Act
Title: A bill to ensure that new mothers and their families are educated about postpartum depression, screened for symptoms, and provided with essential services, and to increase research at the National Institutes of Health on postpartum depression.
Sponsor: Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] (introduced 6/15/2006) COSPONSORS(3), Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 8/3/2006 Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 6/15/2006
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 9/6/2006
July 19, 2006
To reform the Dependent Policy to qualify for Federal Financial Aid (College). This would change how an indivdual is classified when applying for aid to fund post-secondary education.
Those not eligible as a dependent on their parents' tax returns wold no longer be classified as dependents on the FAFSA.
This would allow those young people who do not recieve financial support from their parents to qualify for many more grants and loans.
Maio 6, 2006
A Brasil Telecom precisa ser punida.
Nós, abaixo assinados, clientes ou não da empresa Brasil Telecom, solicitamos agilidade em relação ao andamento do Inquérito Civil n° 180/2005, como também da representação n° 305/2006, criados, respectivamente, pela Promotoria de Defesa do Consumidor do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul e pelo Ministério Público Federal do Rio Grande do Sul com o objetivo de investigar a atuação da empresa em questão.
Reforçamos a necessidade de que uma medida seja tomada, já que a cada dia os prejuízos aos cidadãos aumentam devido às sistemáticas enganações e práticas abusivas desta empresa. Já está em poder do Ministério Público Federal do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul um CD com provas e argumentos contra a Brasil Telecom, tanto na área de telefonia fixa como móvel. Pedimos, portanto, que as informações adicionadas à representação n° 305/2006 acima citada sejam analisadas o mais breve possível, já que se referem, inclusive, a uma promoção da operadora denominada "Pula-Pula", com validade até o ano de 2008 (ou 2010, dependendo de cada cliente). A cada dia que passa os clientes são lesados pela empresa, que segue atuando de forma ilegal e prejudicial a todos os cidadãos, inclusive com enriquecimento ilícito, alterações unilaterais de regulamentos estabelecidos previamente, cobranças abusivas e interferência no poder de livre escolha dos brasileiros.
A Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (ANATEL) assiste estática às irregularidades cometidas pela operadora, sem tomar qualquer atitude. Dezenas de protocolos diários são criados na agência contra a Brasil Telecom, outras centenas de reclamações nos PROCONs de todos os estados onde a operadora atua, além dos inúmeros processos judiciais envolvendo essa empresa.
Os clientes já estão cansados de serem ludibriados e de não terem meios de buscar seus direitos, exceto quando resolvem optar por um processo judicial individual, longo e burocrático contra a prestadora. Por essa razão solicitamos ao Ministério Público que, em nome dos cidadãos brasileiros e em respeito aos mesmos, avalie toda a situação e faça com que a Brasil Telecom passe a atuar de forma responsável, cumprindo com os regulamentos e contratos estabelecidos, e, principalmente, que seja exemplarmente punida pela irregularidades cometidas durante todos os anos em que vem atuando em território nacional.
Nós, brasileiros, aguardamos uma breve solução para o problema chamado "Brasil Telecom". É a única forma de todos sermos beneficiados pela justiça a que temos direito.
April 28, 2006
This Petition will be sent to Congress & President Bush December 13, 2006. It may be extended as we review the signature count each month.
**National Petition for Federal Oil Policy Change**
1. Remove all Federal Gas Tax - This would remove a lot of congressional spending waste and "pork-barrel". This tax was initiated to create our federal interstates in 1932! And is no longer needed yet Congress continues to take the tax and spend the money generated on everything except building interstates. We feel this would begin to ease the burden on the consumer.
The Federal Tax on gas is currently 18.4 cents per gallon which adds approx. $3.50 per tank of gas.
2. Allow ANWAR and Other Areas to be drilled for Oil - Currently we have more Oil available for drilling than the Middle East Countries combined however, a minority group of environmentalists have been able to scare the U.S. Government and take the U.S. Public hostage by not allowing us to utilize our own natural resources. Because of this policy we have become hostage to Radical Religious Fanatics and dependant on Countries which wish our destruction (remember 9/11).
Currently the Chinese, among others are drilling for oil just a few miles off the coast of Florida however, the U.S. is forbidden to drill there because of the Far Left Wing Environmentalists! We are loosing our resources to other countries because of our unbelievable policies which, it's sad to say, even other countries find incomprehensible.
Even Fidel Castro says he may start drilling there and we can't! That means that a Chinese company is or will be drilling for oil and gas within 50 miles of the U.S. coast even though under U.S. policy American energy companies are barred from drilling along most areas of the U.S. coast.
The Saudi crown prince was quoted a while back stating that they "would never use oil as a weapon". Just stating that alone, should be warning enough that we cannot afford to wait, we need to take action NOW! Nobody knows for certain how much oil there is in ANWAR, except that most in the know believe there is a lot. It will take about two years to get the first quart of crude flowing south. We need to start drilling right now, in the hope that we will have it when we need it.
It seems pretty unreasonable not to have the ability to utilize our own resource here, especially in view of the true environmental cost which really is zero. The reality is that only 2000 - of 6 million acres - (one half of one percent) of the wildlife refuge would be impacted, and as seen with the pictures of wildlife all around the existing pipeline the facts show the wildlife is not effected.
3. Remove Oil from the Commodities Market - Oil like Electricity is a NEED, not a luxury. Every U.S, Citizen needs gas to drive and heating oil to survive the winter exactly like Electricity, yet you do not see the price of Electricity being manipulated in the stock market like Oil is! The only reason for this is Greed! The President and/or Congress can put a stop to this immediately if they are forced to do so by YOU!
From MoneyNews: "Traders' January attempts to forecast the stock market outcome could be likened to a game of 'Pin the Tail on the Donkey.' One Energy Analyst from Goldman-Sachs, in his article titled "Super Spike Period May Be Upon Us," raised the range for crude prices from between $50 and $80 per barrel to between $50 and $105.
Another Article states: "This sudden surge, coming in the wake of a much slower increase over the previous three months, suggests that trends warranted by supply-demand balances have been significantly amplified by speculative factors.
Most predictions of where oil prices are headed are based on trends in oil futures or derivative instruments that involve a bet on the likely trend in oil prices. Long positions, involving current access to the commodity held with the intention of selling it later indicate that speculators are betting on a price increase. This implies that available stocks are being held back with future trade at a profit in mind.
To the extent that this affects the actual demand-supply balance at any given point of time, these expectations of a price increase tend to get realized. This renders the price volatile as well."
One other point: Oil Speculation hurts the U.S. however, it hurts even the more the poorer nations of the world and should be stopped if for no other reason than that.
For more information on this shameful state of affairs regarding Oil Speculation:
See also http://www.petitiononline.com/Oil_Tax/petition.html
**Let Congress Hear You**
Sign Below and Take Charge of your and your Children's Future Today!
April 27, 2006
Since world oil prices soared to record highs, Australians have had to dig deep into their pockets at the petrol bowser. Motorists should be aware that roughly half the pump price is tax comprising an excise tax and a GST, thereby slugging motorists with an unfair tax on a tax.
After an unprecedented national campaign lobbying for fuel tax relief in 2000, the Federal Government agreed to review the way petrol is taxed and freeze the Federal excise at 37.7 cents a litre in Victoria. But costs are still high and, with GST on top of excise, if you wanted a $50 tank of petrol at $1 a litre you would be paying $23.40
With petrol prices now looking at staying at $1.40 a litre, in Victoria, if you bought 20 litres of petrol, it would cost you $28 of which somewhere between $9 and over $10 would be taxes, and this is ridiculous.
March 20, 2006
Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee Victorian Electronic Democracy, Final Report, May 2005.
The challenge and the opportunity provided by electronic democracy are providing the means by which the citizens can more fully participate in the decisions which affect their lives.
The key issue when evaluating the role of digital technologies for Democracy is how much Governments and Civil Society can learn to use the opportunities provided by the new channels of information and communication to promote and strengthen the core representative institutions connecting citizens and the state.
I believe that the subcommittee's recommendations, if adopted, will make significant improvement to the Democratic process in Victoria, enhancing the opportunities for the civic participation from the Victorian community and improving the policy making processes of the Government and the Parliament.
INTERACTING WITH PARLIAMENT
Recommendation 80. The parliament of Victoria should introduce an online petitions facility (on a trial basis), subject to ongoing evaluationas to the benefits offered to Victorians.
The Victorian online petition system should include a moderated discussion facility, similiar to that provided by the Scottish Parliament.
Recommendation 81. The Parliamentary Template for paper petitions should be amended to allow for optional collection of email addresses or other electronic means of communication, in order to allow the petitioner to receive information about the status and tabling of their petition from the parliament.
Queensland already accepts online petitions as legally presented petitions, therefore we humbly request that the rest of the Australian legislative assemblies and the federal parliment make electronic petitioning legal.
March 18, 2006
For Federal & State Governments of Australia.
THIS PETITION IS TO STOP THE USE OF UNNECESSARY FENCING OF BARBED WIRE ON HORSE PROPERTIES AND WHERE PETS AND CHILDREN ARE SITUATED.
December 2, 2005
This is a new petition asking for marijuana to be voted on for legalization at the federal level for personal use and personal growing rights.
45. Warroad Warriors
Saulteaux Tribe of the Anishinabe in Warroad
This is our petition for federal recognition as an injustice was done to our Tribe on June 24, 1905. Instead of getting federal recognition we received individual allotments.
We were fully functional as a Government with our own Chief and Council. Chief Aye-Ash-A-Wash signed a treaty to keep Buffalo Point, which is part of our territory and now is in Canada just five miles from Warroad, Minnesota. He was recognized as Chief and as an Indian in Canada. The United States Government did not recognize him as an Indian or Chief. When the patents arrived in Warroad, Nah-May-Puck was our Chief.
We need federal recognition because it would be the right thing to do. We need to correct an injustice that took place here in the United States. Our Tribe was called the Saulteaux Tribe of the Ojibway Indians.
Please help us get the much-needed recognition, as federal recognition would bring millions of federal dollars into the surrounding communities including Warroad, Roseau and Baudette in Minnesota.
Federal recognition would also bring Indian Health Services, Economic Development and education dollars for all of it's members.
The following will receive the petition: Senator Mark Dayton, Senator Norm Coleman, and Senator Collin Peterson.
Do you really want to be forced to narc on your kids and neighbors, or serve prison time? If not, then you need to get active in letting the government know you will not tolerate Natzi tactics! There are currently over 2 million people in U.S. prisons. The majority are non violent, drug offenders. If Congressman Sensenbrenner, R,WI. gets his way, you will. Please sign this petition in total oposition of this very Anti-American of handling a situation!
Senior Republican Proposes ³Draft² for the War on Drugs.
New Bill Would Require All Americans to Spy on Their Neighbors, including Going Undercover and Wearing a Wire or Face Jail Time.
Instead of Dismantling Draconian, Unpopular Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Legislation Would Also
Establish ³Mandatory Minimums² for Every Federal Crime.
A Senior Republican in Congress has proposed what would essentially be a draft for the War on Drugs. The legislation would require all Americans who witness or learn about certain drug offenses to report them to the police within 24 hours and go undercover and wear a wire to catch the offenders if ordered to do so even if the offender is their son or daughter. Introduced by Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the ³Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act² (H.R. 1528), would also overturn a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision by making all federal sentencing guidelines essentially mandatory and enacting new draconian penalties for a variety of non-violent drug offenses.
³It¹s frightening that a senior member of Congress wants to draft every American into the War on Drugs and make them agents of the state,² said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. ³This totalitarian legislation forces citizens to spy on each other and pits family member against family member.²
Under the legislation, any American who witnesses or learns of certain drug offenses taking place would have to report the offenses to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide ³full assistance² in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence and a maximum of ten years.
An example of an offense that would have to be reported to the police within 24 hours is finding out that one¹s brother, who has children, bought a bag of marijuana to share with his wife. Another example is finding out that one¹s son gave his college roommate a marijuana joint.
In each of these cases one is forced to report the relative to the police within 24 hours. One would also have to assist the government in every way, including wearing a wire if needed. Taking 48 hours to think about it could land one in jail. In addition to turning family member against family member, the legislation could also put many ordinary Americans into dangerous situations by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against strangers.
Despite growing opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, the bill also eliminates federal judges¹ ability to give sentences below the minimum sentence recommended by federal sentencing guidelines - essentially creating a mandatory minimum sentence for every federal offense (including both drug and non-drug offenses). It also mandates a 10-year minimum sentence for anyone 21 or older who gives marijuana or others drugs to someone under 18 (i.e. a 21-year-old college students shares a joint to his 17-year old brother). A second offense would carry a mandatory sentence of life in prison. Anyone at a party who passes a marijuana joint at a party to someone who has at some point in their life been in drug treatment would face a mandatory 5-year minimum prison sentence.
³Our country¹s prisons are already overcrowded with people serving massive sentences for non-violent drug offenses,² said Bill Piper. ³The recent Supreme Court decision provided a perfect opportunity for legislators to do the right thing and untie judges¹ hands. Instead, they¹re trying to handcuff the judges completely.²
The bill has been put on the same legislative fast-track as a recent controversial anti-gang bill that the U.S. House of Representatives passed in less than two month¹s time.
47. Ban the Bloc
On September 11, 1993, the Bloc Québécois federal political party, based on the need to defend the French language and promote Quebec culture, became officially registered with Elections Canada.
With this mandate in mind, in the October 1993 federal election, the Bloc formed the Official Opposition in the House of Commons, with Mr. Bouchard as their leader. In Canada, an opposition party is a political party with members elected to the House of Commons or legislative assembly that is neither the government party nor one of a coalition of parties forming the government.
The role of an opposition party is to oppose the government by criticizing government policies, suggesting alternatives and keeping the public informed about issues relating to government administration.
The Bloc Québécois has no other thought other than what is of benefit to Québec, and has no interest in being of benefit to the rest of Canada. They constantly strive and push for separation from Canada, seeking an autonomous and sovereign relationship with Canada.
The existence of the Bloc in the House of Commons is unconstitutional as this party does not run candidates outside of Québec. Should the Bloc ever become the Official Opposition Party again, how could they honestly and justly defend the interests of her Majesty and the people of Canada if their only reason for being is for the welfare of Québec?
William Dale White was wrongfully sentenced to 2 years in the Federal Corrections Institution. He has less than 6 months to finish out his sentence. This petition is to ask for early release.
Dear Honourable Stephen Harper and associate Members of Parliament;
As stated in the Globe and Mail, on Thursday April 28th, 2005, the honourable Stephen Harper will move to bring a no-confidence vote against the liberal government in the following month. Such an action has dire consequences for both Canadian Democracy, and the faith one has in Canadian Politics.
Although this faith has been repeatedly shattered, given the claims of corruption brought forth in regards to the sponsership scandal and the Gomery inquiry, forcing an election prior to the release of the report would undermine Canadian's ability to judge for themselves whether the Liberal government has lost the 'moral authority' to govern. While there is much anger with the Liberal Government, in Quebec and throughout Canada, for the sake of democracy, Canadians must be able to judge for themselves the scope of the injustice of the sponsership scandal. As a result, an election should not be forced until the Gomery Report has been produced.
Secondly, such an election would be a waste of both time that lawmakers could spend doing their job, as well as of the taxpayers money. Millions were lost in the sponsership scandal, but just how many more millions would be lost in an election that would produce near-identical results as the previous one. It is highly doubtful that given the divided support of Canadians an election would result in anything other than another minority government. As a result, it would be likley that such an election would produce a conservative or liberal minority government to be toppled once again a year or so after its formation. In other words, the question must arise, "Why must an election be held now?"
It is obvious that the Conservative Party's answer to this is that the liberal government has lost all moral authority to govern. However, this sponsership scandal is hardly new to this minority government, as it was equally an issue in the previous federal election of 2004. The only change is the production of the Gomery report revealing the details of the scandal. And that is exactly why the federal election should wait until at the very least the entire report has been released. Let the Canadian people see for themselves the details of the corruption first hand. There should be no reason for the Canadian people to have to rely on the media's point of view of the Gomery inquiry. It should be released to the public PRIOR to any move for a federal election.
Finally, in June 2004, the Canadian people expressed their wish to have a divided parliament. There was no clear majority, which proves to the legistlature that the Canadian people are divided. The Canadian elected the LIBERAL party as GOVERNING party, the CONSERVATIVE party as OPPOSITION, and both the NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY and PARTI BLOC QUEBECOIS as significant but smaller OPPOSITION parties. Therefore, each of these parties should work towards comprimises which BEST REFLECT the WILL of the Canadian People. A Minority Parliament is an expression of the Canadain People's desire for comprimise.
50. STOP H.R. 1528 !
WHAT'S WRONG WITH H.R. 1528?
Among other things, it:
- Makes the federal sentencing guidelines a system of mandatory minimum sentences through a "Booker-fix" provision.
- Creates new mandatory minimums that further erode judicial discretion.
- Eliminates the safety valve for low-level drug offenders.
- Makes virtually every drug crime committed in urban areas subject to "drug free zone" penalties that carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.
- Punishes defendants for the "relevant conduct" of co-conspirators that occurred BEFORE the defendant joined the conspiracy.
As written, H.R. 1528 would:
- Effectively make the federal sentencing guidelines a system of mandatory minimum sentences through a "Booker-fix" provision. This provision forbids judges from departing below the guideline sentence in all but a few cases.
- Make the sale of any quantity of any controlled substance (including anything greater than five grams of marijuana) by a person older than 21 to a person younger than 18 subject to a ten-year federal mandatory minimum sentence.
-Create a new three-year mandatory minimum for parents who witness or learn about drug trafficking activities, targeting or even near their children, if they do not report it to law enforcement authorities within 24 hours and do not provide full assistance investigating, apprehending, and prosecuting the offender.
-Create a new 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for any parent committing a drug trafficking crime in or near the presence of their minor child.
- Mandate life in prison for persons 21 years or older convicted a second time of distributing drugs to a person under 18 or convicted a first time after a felony drug conviction has become final.
- Increase to five years the federal mandatory minimum sentence for the sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school, college, public library, drug treatment facility (or any place where drug treatment, including classes, are held), or private or public daycare facilities - in short, almost anywhere in cities across the U.S.
- Eliminate the federal "safety valve," granting it only when the government certifies that the defendant pled guilty to the most serious readily provable offense (the one that carries the longest sentence), and has "done everything possible to assist substantially in the investigation and prosecution of another person," and would prohibit the federal "safety-valve" in cases where drugs were distributed or possessed near a person under 18, where the defendant delayed his or her efforts to provide substantial assistance to the government, or provided false, misleading or incomplete information.
For these reasons, FAMM opposes H.R. 1528.
In recognition of the Suffering of and the contributions by Native American people, I wish to see National Native American Day become a federal holiday.
The US recognizes other holidays in honor of great men and groups of people so why not Natives?
THIS IS A PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT TO APPROVE A FEDERAL LAW TO BAN ASBESTOS IN BRAZIL. ASBESTOS IS A PROVEN CARCINOGEN FOR HUMAN BEINGS AND IS ALREADY BANNED IN MORE THAN 40 COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.
Esta petição ao governo braileiro para que aprove uma lei federal para banir o amianto no Brasil. O amianto é um reconhecido cancerígeno para os seres humanso e já foi banido em mais de 40 países.
Voter turnout in the United States of America has long been in decline, and its time that there was a change. We, the world's leading democracy, have one of the lowest voter participation rates in the world. This is what ultimately led to the formation of the bipartisan National Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Therefore, the need for reform is there and the creation of a Federal Election Day holiday is a viable solution.
A survey completed by the U.S. Census Bureau after the 2000 election found that of those who did not vote, a conflict with work or school was listed as the number one culprit. By moving the celebration of Washington's Birthday to Election Day, we can eliminate the usage of a schedule conflict as a possible excuse.
We, as a nation, will be able to celebrate a right made possible by Washington and his successors and honor them in the process.
Sign this petition to show your discontent with the current age requirements to run for federal offices. Show your support for younger leaders by supporting a Constitutional Amendment to allow younger people to run for political office.
Sept. 30 could be the beginning of economic doom for our coal producing states if Congress does not take action to extend a federal program that mining reclamation supports 45,000 retired miners benefits.
The Abandoned Mine Land, or AML, is a program created in 1977, when it passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
Under the program, coal operators pay 35 cents tax per ton of surface-mined coal and 15 cents per ton of underground-mined coal. The money is used to clean up coal mines that were abandoned before 1977.
If that happens, thousands of abandoned mine sites mostly in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky would go unreclaimed.
Currently the AML is languishing on capital hill and set to expire at the end of September
Without congressional action, the coal tax that funds mine cleanups would expire Sept. 30.
As a result, more than $2 billion worth of high-priority coal reclamation will remain unreclaimed, leaving millions of people who live, work and recreate in the nation's coalfields to continue to be exposed to the many dangers these areas represent.
Tax payers of coal producing states could be forced to pay for the clean-up, instead of the coal operators. The state is already in a budget crisis and paying for this would sink the Bluegrass in to a much deeper deficit - one that potentially we would never find our way out of.
Lawmakers and Interior's Office of Surface Mining have showed great humanitarianism by allowing AML money to fund infrastructure projects like health-care benefits (UMWA Orphan Funds) for retired miners who have fallen between the cracks by coal corporation bankruptcies.
On Aug. 31 in Lexington, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge William Howard finalized the decision allowing Horizon Natural Resources to file bankruptcy, thus voiding union contracts providing health care coverage for nearly 3,000 employees, including 2,300 retirees -- many of whom suffer from black lung as a result of their working years at Horizon. Many of these affected by the decision are Kentuckians who's only hope for health care is for the AML to continue.
Cutting off the health care benefits provided by the tax could not only devastate thousands of retired coal miners lives, but also be detrimental to the state's local economies who's doctors and pharmacies main source of income is treatment of these miners.
Congress Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., with support of House Democrats, took the first step Sept. 14 to stave off the end of the federal program. Sen. Byrd won Senate Appropriations Committee approval to extend a tax that funds the cleanup program for another nine months, but so far no outward support has been shown by House Republicans to save the issue.
The current extension calls for 9 months, but House Republicans have agreed to this measure by cutting the tax 75% - a drastic reduction in the amount of money to fund the miners health care plans and for money to repair the environmental damage done by the coal operators.
The far reaching effects of letting the AML languish and die could spell disaster for the all coal producing states if an extension is not granted.
I will use this issue to evaluate your commitment to working families in America. I await your prompt response.
In too many cases, California fathers end up paying child support on other men's children AND DON'T KNOW IT! Often the mother involved DOES know that the child or children are not the children of her husband, but she claims that they are his children because she is mad at him and she likes the children's father. This is fraud.
When she makes that claim to a court in a divorce or a child support action, she is committing perjury. She may claim to be doing it "for the children". A crime committed "for the children" is still a crime.
The #1 one targets of such frauds are our Military Man who proudly and voluntarily serve our country. It is not fair!
Write to Congress and express your concerns of this wrong doing.
Soldiers Risking Their Lives in Iraq Might Face Prison Over Child Support Upon Return
By Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.
Soldiers Risking Their Lives in Iraq Might Face Prison Over Child Support Upon Return
As America's servicemen risk their lives to protect their families and ours, the federal government is preparing to put them in jail.
That's right; you heard correctly. Most societies honor their returning heroes. In America we punish them.
Soldiers who ship off to Iraq risk not only their lives but arrest and jail when they return. Those who accept a pay cut to defend their country can be incarcerated when they are unable to pay the impossible child support burdens imposed on them by the federal government's divorce machinery.
It is mind-boggling that servicemen who risk their lives to protect us will face arrest as they step off the plane. Yet this is precisely what happened after Desert Storm, and it will happen again this time.
The federal government has issued the usual PR smokescreen, urging soldiers to contact their local child support agents to request a modification. But such requests are almost never granted. Child support fills government coffers with federal taxpayers' money. Governments have no incentive to give these soldiers a break and plenty of incentive not to.
The Christian Science Monitor reports that a soldier whose domestic job pays $31,000 must pay $900 a month in child support. His reserve pay will reduce his income to $27,000. The Monitor neglects to point out that even at the higher pay, this is about half the man's take-home pay, and that he is likely to be living on less than $1,000 a month. Another father's child support comprises 73% of his income, leaving him $200 a month to live on.
Do we really believe that these heroes are "deadbeat dads" who went to Iraq to avoid paying child support? If not, perhaps it is time we began to examine whether the entire child support system is anything other than a fraud. If these men are not "deadbeats," then who is? If these arrests are an abuse of government power, why are not all the others?
Attempts to protect our civilization from external threats will be pointless if we allow it to be undermined from within. How long do we expect men to sacrifice their lives and livelihoods for their country when their government steals their children and uses those children to extort huge sums of money from their fathers?
What kind of morale can we expect in our armed forces when the same brave men who risk their lives to protect their families from invasion by terrorists are powerless to protect their families from invasion by their own government.
Now imagine this happening to you or one of your love ones. To add insult to injury you find out that the child you are being forced to support is not even yours and your ex-wife or ex-girlfriend knew about it since day one!
For FCF News on Demand, this is Stephen Baskerville.
Peter King has been the Liberal Party sitting member of the Australian House of Representives for the Sydney seat of Wentworth since 2001. Despite his outstanding performance and the support of the residents, he failed to gain Liberal Party pre-selection for the upcoming elections.
This is a call for Peter King to stand as an Independent so he can continue to represent the people of Wentworth.
Congress is about to begin voting on the FMA (Federal Marriage Ammendment). The FMA discriminates against homosexuals who wish to be married. It says that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman, not two men or two women because those aren't "right." Well, who are they to tell us what is morally right? Not everyone is of a religion that believes this. Some people are but still believe it is wrong to force their beliefs on others. Well, it IS wrong to force your beliefs on others, so PLEASE sign this petition to get the Pennsylvania senators to vote against the FMA and allow freedom to everyone.
The nation is clearly founded upon Christian principles and beliefs. Why turn away from the principles that has so clearly defined and has blessed our nation?
The Bible clearly states, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:27-28), and "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Clearly there is no place in God's plan for homosexual marriage, and it will doom this country to God's judgment should we continue to flout His law in such an important matter. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the foundation of stable society for centuries, and we as a nation cannot afford to erode any further foundations of the country.
We ask for you to immediately do all that you can to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution that preserves the sanctity of marriage in America and forever prohibits the perversion of homosexual marriage.
The 1996 (DOMA) Defense of Marriage Act was enacted into law. This law clearly states that the definition of marriage is a bond between one woman and one man. This clearly states that same sex relations are not considered to be married legaly.
Taken from a letter from Patty Murray, she states "The Constitution leaves marriage to be regulated by the states rather than the federal government."
Another letter from Adam Smith on the Gay Marriage Bill states, "The amendment in question would prohibit states from allowing gay marriage... After evaluating the issue carefully, I have serious concerns with theis amendment and will oppose it. . . I do not see gay marriage as a threat that would chang the rights or obligations of heterosexual marriage. The real threat to marriage is abuse, neglect or outright lack of commitment to the contract people have voluntarily entered into when taking marriage vows. I believe our society is made stronger buy more committed and stable relationships, and we should encourage that."
Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott | posted 02/19/2004 has this to say, " We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
I strive daily to uphold the laws of the land but what is going on in the Nation about Marriage, I must speak up. I am a Christian and the higer voice we should seek and listen to is that of the Bible. Let me quote the breath of God in this matter, "For this reason, a man (male) will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (woman), and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24
There was a problem with this same thing in the Bible, what does it say about Gays and Lesbians? "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22
" Are you still so dull ? Jesus asked them Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart and these make the man unclean. For out of the heart comes evil thoughts, murder, adultry, sexual immorality, theft, false testamony, slander. These are what makes a man unclean." Matthew 15:16-20
WE find in many other New Testament books of warnings of immoral relations, we must listen to them.