If the University of California can censor political debate on Israel, what is to stop it from restricting all political debate? A threat to free speech at the University of California is a threat to free speech everywhere. [1] UC goes back to the drawing board on controversial revamp of free-speech policy, LA Times, 9/17/2015 [2] The Regents Of The University Of California's Statement Of Principles Against Intolerance, University of California Regents, 9/17/2015 [3] Editorial: UC's new 'Principles Against Intolerance' fail free-speech test, LA Times, 9/16/2015 [4] California's Civil and Criminal Laws Pertaining to Hate Crimes, State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General

It is important because right now Americans feel helpless in the workings of the government, disgusted. There seems to be nothing we can do besides rally behind Trump's traveling circus. On the other hand, this simple grass-roots action is one where the American people hold the cards.

Obama issued an executive order regulating and limiting use of military equipment by US police departments, given local law enforcement from the 1033 program. However, over 400 municipal police departments in the US are still actively using and requesting deep combat equipment such as MRAPs, armor piercing rifles, other deadly military weapons and identity operations equipment. This is out of over 8,000 law enforcement offices registered for surplus equipment. This equipment is recognizable by the American public as military equipment and has been demilitarized in name only. When used by local law enforcement it conveys to the community that police are “ready for war” with them. The police cannot be at war with the community they have a responsibility to protect from problem actors. That is a conflict of interest. It also stands outside the role of local law enforcement, who are a civilian force, not military, in peacetime. During times of national emergency there is deference to the US National Guard. Police do not, and should not, fill in the space of the US military based on their domestic role in using surplus military equipment. Not all surplus equipment given to law enforcement has the same weight or meaning to communities, as specialized heavy combat equipment. Some 1033 equipment is basic military surplus gear, like: boots for extreme cold, office furnishings and protective clothing. Law enforcement should be compelled by the DLA to inform communities & cities, flagging 1033 military equipment application requests for items used in heavy combat missions as a condition of surplus release. Existing 1033 LESO equipment should be reviewed transparently by each community. If the equipment is deemed inappropriate for community policing standards by the public, it should be made available for immediate recall by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) or made unavailable to local police. If the DLA cannot further local communities' ability to regulate the flow of weapons and war grade armory to their police forces, perhaps it is time to end the 1033 program.

World Beyond War has outlined specific reforms that would democratize the United Nations, and make nonviolent actions the primary activity engaged in. Please read them here. http://worldbeyondwar.org/reforming-united-nations INITIAL SIGNERS: David Swanson Coleen Rowley David Hartsough Patrick Hiller Alice Slater Kevin Zeese Heinrich Buecker Norman Solomon Sandra Osei Twumasi Jeff Cohen Leah Bolger Robert Scheer

Treason should not be tolerated in any form. Taking sides with a foreign leader in foreign policy is treason.

The U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) is a federal government institute created by a bill signed into law in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan and funded annually by Congress as well as sometimes receiving funding from the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the military.[1] The law states that the "Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Director of Central Intelligence each may assign officers and employees of his respective department or agency, on a rotating basis to be determined by the Board, to the Institute." The Institute has never opposed a U.S. war and claims that it can only support things, not oppose them. But in fact, the law only forbids it from seeking "to influence the passage or defeat of legislation ... except that the personnel of the Institute may testify or make other appropriate communication when formally requested to do so by a legislative body, a committee, or a member thereof." Most U.S. wars, including the war on Libya, the newly revived war on Iraq (and Syria), and the drone wars on Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, have been launched without legislation. And, even if there were legislation involved, it would not be at all difficult for USIP to ask a single member of Congress to request its opinion, thereby freeing it to provide its views and its research. USIP makes no claim that it cannot provide the public with information on the negative results of U.S. wars; it simply fails to do so. The Institute in fact makes recommendations to Congress, including in formally presented testimony, it just recommends things like supporting the Syrian opposition, training and arming troops to fight both ISIS and the Syrian government, and creating a "no fly zone" in Syria, rather than working toward an arms embargo or aid or diplomacy.[2] The Institute has recommended diplomacy with Iran, and could do so in a dozen other cases, although its notion that weapons sales is part of diplomacy may be less than helpful.[3] The law requires that the USIP Board include 15 voting members, including the Secretaries of State and "Defense," the President of the National "Defense" University, and 12 members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and each having "practical or academic experience in peace and conflict resolution." The law also states that "No member of the Board may participate in any decision, action, or recommendation with respect to any matter which directly and financially benefits the member or pertains specifically to any public body or any private or nonprofit firm or organization with which the member is then formally associated or has been formally associated within a period of two years." There are a number of mechanisms for removing a board member, including 8 or more board members making that recommendation to the President. The USIP does do some work aimed at peace, including hosting speakers and producing publications aimed at peace, sending skilled mediators into conflict zones, making research grants, holding essay contests, and conducting conflict-resolution trainings, but such efforts are deeply compromised by the following concerns: USIP board member and chairman, Stephen Hadley, urges the bombing of Syria and the militarization of Ukraine, while encouraging European nations to double their military spending, and himself profiting from war as a board member of Raytheon.[4] USIP board member Eric Edelman, a former undersecretary at the Pentagon, promotes higher military spending, an attack on Iran, and deployment of nuclear weapons to nations on Russia's border.[5] USIP board member Major General Frederick M. Padilla, USMC, is career military. USIP promotes the overthrow of the Syrian government.[6] USIP is not known to have ever opposed a U.S. war, U.S. weapons exports, U.S. foreign bases, or U.S. military spending.[7] USIP promotes trade embargoes, economic austerity programs, and electoral interventions as tools of aggression, not peace building.[8] USIP funds many more supporters than opponents of militarism.[9] USIP hosts pro-war talks by leading war advocates.[10] Appropriate board members for USIP exist in large numbers, and many of them would no doubt be happy to serve. Here are a few examples of the many possible names: Kathy Kelly, Michael McPhearson, Ann Wright, Paul Chappell, Noura Erekat, Dennis Kucinich, David Vine, Matt Daloisio, John Dear, Bruce Gagnon, Phil Donahue, Mel Duncan, David Hartsough, Mubarak Awad, Leslie Cagan, Roy Bourgeois, Cornell West, Lennox Yearwood, Osagyefo Sekou, Phyllis Bennis, Andy Shallal, Helena Cobban, Noam Chomsky, Elliott Adams.

Private prisons profit on human trafficking and misery. We don't want our pension involved in that industry.

The candidate for president can have the most votes and lose the election. For many voters and myself included this seems unfair.

We all know "we the people" are not represented by those we send to Washington. They serve corporate masters. If we can support dictators and create expensive wars then we can afford a second election within 30 days of first. We do not need majority just more than anyone else.

Industrial hemp is a variety of cannabis sativa. Both the U.N. and the North American Free Trade Agreement recognize industrial hemp as distinct from marijuana due to hemp's next-to-nothing THC content. For thousands of years hemp was used to make dozens of commercial products like paper, rope, canvas, and textiles. Many years ago hemp and marijuana were unjustly banned together. Hemp has great environmental, economic, and commercial potential!! Hemp and marijuana are two very different cultivars grown using very distinct and differentiated methods. The potential of hemp for paper production is enormous. In 1916 the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a report which found that one acre of hemp can produce four times as much pulp for paper as one acre of trees![1] All types of paper products can be produced from hemp: newsprint, computer paper, stationary, cardboard, envelopes, toilet paper, even tampons. Paper production from hemp would eliminate the need to chop down BILLIONS of trees! MILLIONS of acres of forests and huge areas of wildlife habitat could be preserved! With tree farms, soil exposure can last for years in the time it takes for even a small tree to grow. Trees must grow for somewhere between several years & thousands of years after planting before they can be harvested for commercial use! Within 3-4 months after it is planted, hemp grows 10 to 20 feet tall and it is ready for harvesting![2] Hemp's long, strong, quickly growing roots help percolate and hold the soil in place. They also contribute to nutrient recycling through the whole plant.[4] Additionally, any stalk or leaves help keep the soil from drying out while its bio-mass insulates the area. Reduction of topsoil erosion would also reduce pollution of lakes/rivers/streams. Fewer caustic and toxic chemicals are used to make paper from hemp than are used to make paper from trees. It has been estimated that hemp could provide 100% of US energy needs if widely cultivated and put to good use. So many products can be made from hemp. Growing hemp would completely change what we call America today. Many products would become eco-friendly and our environment and economy would improve drastically in just a few short years. Of course there are some very rich people who have been doing things the wrong way for a very long time who would not like the U.S. to have a cheaper, more renewable, resource -- a resource that would be available to almost anyone with land, a little bit of money, or the ability to sharecrop. Some people are very resistant to change. But President Obama claims to be so much different than that. Thats why the world needs your help to tell Obama to use his power of executive order to fully and immediately decriminalize industrial hemp.

They are dangerous to people, animals, plants and the planet. "Flamethrowers, given up by the military, are now being sold to the public" http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/13/smallbusiness/flamethrowers-public-sale/index.html

After Wilfred Burchett reported on the death and dying at Hiroshima, the Pentagon assigned reporters to dishonestly oppose that reporting with lies. One of these was William Laurence. His front-page story, U.S. ATOM BOMB SITE BELIES TOKYO TALES: TESTS ON NEW MEXICO RANGE CONFIRM THAT BLAST, AND NOT RADIATION, TOOK TOLL, ran on September 12, 1945 in the New York Times. "William L. Laurence went on to write a series of ten articles for the Times that served as a glowing tribute to the ingenuity and technical achievements of the nuclear program. Throughout these and other reports, he downplayed and denied the human impact of the bombing. Laurence won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting." "It turns out that William L. Laurence was not only receiving a salary from The New York Times. He was also on the payroll of the War Department. In March 1945, General Leslie Groves had held a secret meeting at The New York Times with Laurence to offer him a job writing press releases for the Manhattan Project, the U.S. program to develop atomic weapons. The intent, according to the Times, was 'to explain the intricacies of the atomic bomb’s operating principles in laymen’s language.' Laurence also helped write statements on the bomb for President Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson." Amy Goodman and David Goodman wrote about this at https://www.transcend.org/tms/2015/08/hiroshima-cover-up-how-the-war-departments-timesman-won-a-pulitzer/