Support out leaders.

This is just good information for our leader to have. I would think he is the only one that should see this. I hope that will be respected.

In order to guarantee that criminals, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and others are denied unchecked access to guns, the State of Florida should enact a law requiring verified comprehensive background checks on all sales of firearms. To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented more than two million convicted felons and other dangerous individuals from buying guns. Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. Further, this amendment nullifies the 'default proceed' rule which states a firearm purchase can proceed if not performed in three days by requiring a verified background check. This rule allowed 3,722 gun sales to prohibited persons in 2012.

We as a Nation America must bring to an end all types of racial ignorance. I have been attacked because of Trump's racist remarks about Latino Americans. I fear being killed. Many are acting on Trump's hatred across America. Donald Trump's "Hatred Spew" on Twitter daily must be banned along with him. We are sick of reading his daily "Hate Tweets," which the media pushes daily for rating and dollars. Enough is Enough! We DEMAND that Donald Trump and his Hatred Spew be BANNED from Twitter NOW! Please take a stand - help end hatred. Are you in? Sign the petition if you are sick of Donald Trump's Racism in your Nation. I fear that Trump hatred will get me and others killed. Racism kills.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has identified climate change as an "urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources (like water)." To help prepare for the growing threat of climate change, the DOD adopted a "climate change adaptation and resilience" directive earlier this year. Top officials were assigned jobs of determining how climate change should shape everything from weapons acquisition to personnel training. But House Republicans just passed an amendment to the defense spending bill that prohibits the DOD from spending money on its climate programs. Andrew Holland, who works at the American Security Project, said, "It's actually crazy to me, and it should be crazy to anyone in the military, that Congress is telling them not to do this." (1) In addition to climate planning, the DOD has been leading clean energy research and deployment, in order to reduce the need to go to war for fossil fuels, to save lives lost while transporting fuel for battlefield operations, and to help prevent climate chaos. Given the high costs--in lives, dollars and climate instability--of fossil fuel dependence, the military’s climate and clean energy programs should enjoy strong bipartisan support, not ideological opposition rooted in climate denial. The U.S. Senate maintained funding for the DOD climate directive in its defense spending bill. Senators on the conference committee reconciling the Senate and House bills can remove the anti-climate action amendment from the final legislation.  Please sign the petition to tell senators to reject the short-sighted, "crazy" House legislation that would stop the DOD’s new climate change program. (1) http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/republicans-trying-to-stop-pentagon-climate-plan-000149#ixzz4D6Dc1WRo

The Democratic Platform drafting committee rejected amendments to oppose the TPP agreement [1] and to oppose the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. [2] The TPP is opposed by Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders, the overwhelming majority of House Democrats, the labor movement, the climate justice movement, and groups concerned about access to essential medicines. The Sanders campaign and the pro-peace, pro-Israel lobby J Street [3] had asked the drafting committee to oppose settlement construction and expansion in the West Bank, which are a key obstacle to a diplomatic resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. On Friday, the Obama Administration called on the Israeli government to stop expanding settlements in the West Bank. [4] In Orlando on July 8-9, the full platform committee will consider these issues again. [5] Urge the Democratic Platform Committee to oppose the TPP and to oppose settlement expansion in the West Bank by signing our petition. References: 1. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democrats-draft-platform-doesnt-oppose-tpp-thats-bad-policy-and-bad-politics/ 2. http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.727025 3. http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000155-179d-dad1-a777-3f9dee560002 4. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-israel-palestinians-quartet-idUSKCN0ZH3QI 5. https://demconvention.com/platform/

Dear Mr. Schultz, As the largest coffee vendor in the world, Starbucks could be leading efforts to reduce waste in the food industry. You say you "are working to shrink [your] environmental footprint and meet the expectations of [your] customers by reducing the waste associated with [your] business, increasing recycling and promoting reusable cups," yet your company's routine practices suggest otherwise. Though you sell reusable cups and give a discount to customers who use them, I've seen no active promotion of this reward system in the many Starbucks I have visited. I've also discovered that bringing one's own cup is no guarantee that a disposable cup won't get wasted in the process. Your website claims that you "have learned that widespread behavior change is unlikely to be driven by one company alone" and that you "will continue to explore new ways to reduce [your] cup waste but ultimately it will be [the] customers who control whether or not [you] achieve continued growth in the number of beverages served in reusable cups." My own efforts to get you to address the waste inherent in your drip coffee system suggests that this claim is disingenuous. Customers like me, who order decaf in a large travel mug (even one purchased at Starbucks), have noticed that it is routine practice to use a disposable paper cup to catch the coffee before transferring it to a travel mug. Several efforts to head off this practice when I order have proven useless. I've also visited some franchises that sell travel mugs, but won't even sell you coffee in a reusable container. They say it's the law, yet another franchise 20 miles up the road makes no such claim. After three attempts over the last two years to get your company to address these relatively minor concerns, with absolutely no sign of progress, I have come to seriously doubt Starbucks' sincerity regarding waste reduction. Since I believe that Starbucks has the capacity make a real difference, I feel it's time to ask other Starbucks customers to let you know that this is not OK with them either. A company that earns $20 billion a year while adding 4 billion cups to the global waste stream could be doing a lot more to promote reuse, yet I see no evidence that you are interested in addressing even relatively small problems that would actually save you money. So, how can I expect more substantive measures, like offering real cups to those who aren't taking the coffee out in ALL franchises? You should be ashamed. I'm asking anyone who believes that waste reduction is everyone's responsibility to do the following until we see some sign that Starbucks is really listening: 1)Sign this petition to ask Starbucks to renew its commitment to promoting reuse both within its company and within its industry. 2) Share this message with friends and family. 3) Frequent locally owned coffee shops that serve coffee in real cups on premises and promote the use of reusable containers. If we don't lead the charge to stop letting convenience trump common sense, who will? Starbucks could be very influential in leading this effort, but first you have to commit to eliminating systemic waste and actively promote reuse. Can you hear me now? I hope so, because I really do like your coffee! Sincerely, Pat Blakeslee Advocate for Zero Waste

The North Carolina General Assembly is wasting taxpayer money to pay legal fees to defend HB2, a suit they have no real chance of winning, just to make a political point. They are using money from the disaster relief fund to pay for this. If North Carolina is hit with the kind of flooding that West Virginia and Texas have experienced, or, as we enter hurricane season, if a hurricane damages a community, the fund to help will be reduced by a half million dollars.

In Ohio, we limit to three the number of shotgun slugs a hunter can have in his or her rifle while deer hunting. Why in the world do we offer a better chance of survival to a deer than we do to a nightclub patron? First, as the author of this petition, I want to be clear about my position. I own a handgun and I support the right of other responsible people to also own handguns and sporting weapons. Furthermore, unlike most of the people who are vocal about their right to protect themselves with a gun, I've actually been in situations where I've used my gun for self protection—twice last summer alone, once when a man broke into our home in the middle of the night, and another time when I crossed paths with a feral hog at my farm. But for the life of me, I see no reason why anyone needs an assault-style weapon for self-protection. I get the attraction and enjoyment that some people find in owning these sorts of weapons They are a lot of fun. I also acknowledge that an assault weapons ban is an infringement against the majority of people who use them responsibly. But, dammit, I am so tired of seeing innocent children slaughtered by these weapons. Some people feel a better solution would be to arm everyone. I don't see that working. Not everyone wants to carry a gun, and not everyone wants to live in a world where they feel they need to do so in order to go about their daily affairs. They would prefer some common-sense alternative that would help keep assault-style weapons out of the hands of crazies, criminals, and terrorists. Furthermore, it's reckless to suggest that a gun is the best choice for folks who don't want to carry guns to begin with, who are afraid of them, and who wouldn't put the time in that's needed in order to be proficient in their use. I also know that both sides of this debate arrived at different conclusions about the effectiveness of the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. About the only thing that they agreed on was that it appeared to lower the incidents of mass shootings. That'll work. Is there a Constitutional issue here? That's a red herring, in my mind. As the Supreme Court has ruled a number of times, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor is it a device designed to assist mass murderers and terrorists. Of course an assault weapons ban isn't going to stop every instance of mass murder or every type of terrorist attack. Of course there needs to be more effort made to identify the people who truly intend to misuse these weapons to kill children and cut short promising lives. But it might help some. An assault weapons ban is not a perfect remedy, but it's an uneasy compromise I'll accept at this point if it helps keep just one more nut from causing mayhem at just one more elementary school. Addendum: Some people have contacted me to state that it's hard to define what an assault weapon is. Ultimately, that's a legislature's responsibility to define, but here's my suggestion for a starting point--an assault weapon is a firearm with a barrel length greater than 12 inches AND holding more than 11 rounds at a time AND able to fire 30 rounds or more within two minutes. If a firearm meets all three of these conditions, it's an assault weapon. If a firearm does not meet all three of these conditions, it's not an assault weapon.

I live in Oregon. The entire West coast is on fault lines, prime for earthquakes. Obama just approved 1,500 new oil fracking wells, which can contribute to this huge devastation. People living on the West coast are more important than oil.

This petition is to speak for all of the individuals that are simply trying to raise productive members of society. With all that's going on in the world, it is simply not fair to jail a 70 year old woman for whipping her grandchild, while police around the world are killing people with no consequence. It is time to take a stand!!!

A basic, centuries-old tenet of our justice system is that ignorance of the law is no defense. But Corporate America's puppets in Congress are trying to sneak language into much-needed criminal justice reform legislation so that executives can get away with breaking the law. CEOs would be able to evade prosecution by claiming they didn't know what the law required of them. As if it's not obvious they shouldn’t sell defective products or rip people off. It's great that Congress, in a bipartisan push, is at last tackling ineffective and discriminatory law enforcement policies that have thrown vast numbers of people in prison for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses — at last taking steps to address the crisis of over-criminalization and over-incarceration. But corporate crime inflicts a horrific toll on our society. And there are far too FEW — not too many — corporate criminal prosecutions. Tell Congress: Reject any attempt to create an "ignorance of the law" defense that makes it harder to prosecute corporate crime.