Ben 10 Alien Forceepisode 43

The non-voters strongest force in the government are becoming

Dear non-voters,

congratulations on the election victory! At 29%, the non-voters now strongest political force in the German Bundestag ! I also congratulate the rapid conclusion of the coalition agreement with the CDU / CSU and FDP. The party of non-voters take part in the government unconditionally - without imposing their own requirements.

This made the non-voters in Germany really moving and really politics, because thanks to your mandate and because of an unconstitutional electoral system in Germany we have the extraordinary situation that our country is run from the comfort of people who are just about third of the population were elected by ballot.

I still find it sad that you - have used your voice is not active - than non-voters.

However, I wish you every success in the new government and all of us a bright future,

Stemke.

PS: I also congratulate all politicians and parties who have contributed in recent years to the sustainable strengthening of the political power of non-voters. As you can see, well, governments can benefit from this.

clarification:

fact, I consider this development for more than questionable.

It must be done even more for that very reason a new policy!

Ncio Robin And Nami Hot Games

ePetitionen censored?

On 30 July 2009, I have an online ePetition public on nuclear supply and disposal https: submitted / / epetitionen.bundestag.de.

After the petition on 15th September 2009 was still not online and the status of the petition in my profile "status not available" was, I was responsible to the Clerk of the Petitions Committee by phone

Jaedtke my wife could tell you that on 31 August 2009, a receipt mailed to me was. There I was informed that the petition does not qualify under guideline for the treatment of public petitions and therefore not published. She would like a general petition to be treated and it was a request to the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety was made.

They wanted me to call on procedural grounds does not say on what conditions it lacks detail. But I could submit a written request. This I have done with the following letters:

Date: 16th September 2009 11:47:19 EDT

To: post.pet @ bundestag.de

Subject: request Petiton Pet 2-16-18-279-059003 / Nuclear Supply and disposal

Good day Mrs. Jaedtke,
many thanks for the friendly phone call from 15. September 2009. Too bad you can not answer my question by phone. As requested, I hereby put this in writing by mail.
they have informed me that my 30 July 2009 was not published as a public petition filed petitions because they do not fulfill the relevant requirements under the Directive for the treatment of public petitions. The petition, however, would be treated according to the general procedural principles for petitions.
you have not specified the points on which the petition does not comply with these rules. I have offered upon notification of violation to adjust accordingly the petition - to 'cure', therefore, to allow publication. I consider the petition by such general interest that I want to achieve a release.

Even after renewed study of the policies and the Petitions by me and by others we are still not clear why the publication of the petition was rejected. It is a major issue. Precisely why I have filed the petition as a public petition.

I ask you to give its opinion by stating the exact reasons that led to the rejection of the publication of the petition. I request that the petition according to 'cure' to be allowed in order for a publication, or for suggestions as to how the publication of a petition to be achieved.

Can you at the re-examination on 30 Explore July 2009 petition submitted any reasons which militate against disclosure, I ask you to publish the petition and me in this to inform case.

Sincerely,
Stemke

PS:

research based on Page http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/ausschuesse/a02/index.jsp specified email address petitionsausschuss@bundestag.de does not seem to be valid.

\u0026lt;Petitionsausschuss@bundestag.de

>

:: From the error log

193.17.232.1_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said: _550_5.1.1_ \u0026lt; ;. petitionsausschuss@bundestag.de >: _Recipient_address_rejected: _User_unknown/Giving_up_on_193.17.232.1 /

Furthermore, I would like because of this incident like 2 more petitions . Submit However, at present prevents me concern. In particular, the section 4 d) of the guideline for the treatment of public petitions :

• of a publication may not be required, especially if the petitioner already public petitions on the website of the Petitions Committee present
  

With this clause could be any further publication of a petition after the first to publish the latest after the second Petitions will be rejected.

The petitions, which I do burn on the nails:

1. change in policy for the handling of public petitions
2. protection of personal data by petitioners for public petitions

Here again is the link to unpublished ePetition to nuclear utilities and waste disposal .

---

Update 2009-09-24

Today I have an answer in the mail. In short, it is said to justify the rejection:

"I ask for their understanding that the Petitions Committee ...
them apart, to justify refusal to release to the petitioner
."

Furthermore, the letter sounds not as if the petition would violate the guidelines, but would now now there are other reasons that would not call the committee published.

Unfortunately, this creates the suspicion that the Petitions Committee of the publication of petitions arbitrarily prevents. The "it" is written in the letter actually small.

detail here the full response:

Now I ask myself what can you do?

Has the petition, the potential that an appeal to many people, the petition itself again submit the same wording as ePetition making a difference?

.. parallel to collect signatures classic? moldy

Or the petition in a file somewhere be ...?

Pattycakeonline Username

Public ePetition: Guideline for the treatment of public ePetitionen

This petition has been (yet) been submitted to the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag.

wording of the petition / What you want to reach specific with your petition?

The German Bundestag may decide that, in disagreement with the publication of a public petition made the rejection detail the reasons and unfounded.

is also rejecting an appeal to be resolved.
should be created for the petitioner the opportunity to revise the petition is rejected according to a release permit.

Reason:
be present petitions, which are not approved for publication sweeping rejected on the grounds that the petition would violate the rules of procedure.
the motivation is not specified - for example, is contrary to what point the directive. Thus, it is not possible at first, the petition to "heal" if necessary to allow them to publish to.

Even by phone is given no information, by pointing out that this would violate the procedural guidelines.

It is understandable that the petitions were rejected for various reasons as a whole, as certain conditions are not met.
It is not clear if a publication is rejected generally and without giving valid reasons.
It should be possible, reasons that militate against disclosure remedy, if necessary.

are currently reply to such written questions to the Petitions Committee, pointing out that the Committee can arbitrarily decide whether a petition is published or not.

The current approach gives the shells suspected censorship of certain subjects to enable or to take even before. This should be avoided.

Furthermore I call to clarify the rules and the point 4 d) without replacement.
"Rule 4 d) from a publication may not be required, especially if the petitioner already present public petitions on the website of the Petitions Committee is"

This is obviously no substantive argument which precludes a petition.

Comment:

If the current approach of government censorship of public petitions?

Snowmobile Load On Pick-up Truck

Public ePetition: petition - Privacy

This petition has been (yet) been submitted to the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag.

wording of the petition / What you want to reach specific with your petition?

The German league staff may decide to protect the data from petitioners and signatories - For public petitions (online petition) as well as for individual petitions.

Reason:

ePetitionen be published for public personal information of the petitioner and the signatories.

for a petition, it is quite satisfactory when the identities of the petitioners and signatories to the petitions committee are known.
A publication of personal data (Full Name or full name and address or Country / State) is not necessary.
A publication of these data, however, prevent individual citizens in political issues in particular their views known to do.

petitions should such elections can be free and secret.

The comparison to elections is obvious, since in either case is a political expression and citizen participation must be protected in the. This is particularly true on issues that are critically discussed in the Geselschaft and which by petitioner or signatory or other harassment their personal environment may fear that if their views become public.

The Petitions Committee argued that the signer is adequately protected even with a publication of the name. This is not so - the more so if the name is rare, such as Stemke.

particular, the directive on public petitions explicitly states that petitions are not released when that "engages in personal rights of people (eg by name). The petitioner should experience the same protection.

Assuming a written request on this matter to the Petitions Committee by mail, you get no answer.

Comment:
The protection is necessary. Not only press or citizens, even the institutions of the Federal Government manifest occasionally distort or misleading statements to ongoing petitions, as the comment of the Federal Minister of Economics and Technology to the online petition on blocking of Internet sites of 22.04.2009, that of more than 130,000 citizens was signed - to be vilified, despite the danger to the public in ignorance, or ignorance as a child molester.
The Federal Minister of Economics and Technology has expressed himself in such a way as if the citizens which the petition to sign to do bad things.
petitioners and signers must be protected from possible reprisals by the state and citizens. Your personal data are therefore not to publish.

Kavithaigal In Tamil For Marriage

Public ePetition: Nuclear Supply and disposal

submitted to the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag at https: / / epetitionen.bundestag.de 30 July 2009.

The publication was rejected for unspecified reasons clarified by the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag.

See also my post " ePetitionen be censored? "

wording of the petition / What you want to reach specific with your petition?

Which is the decision or action or matter you want to complain

? (Brief description of the object of your petition)

The German Bundestag should adapt the following points of nuclear law:

1.Endlagerung is to make recoverable

2.Endlagerung only by the federal government

3.Endlagerkosten due on importing / promotion

4.Gebühr covers actual costs

5.Verantwortliche and users are personally responsible.

6.Gewährleistung safe removal

7.Ausfuhrverbot radioactive material

8.Sicherheit of the facilities from disasters and terrorist attacks

9.Keine radioactive emissions.

10.Angemessene insurance

11.Verjährung

Please explain your petition!

The law must be adapted to the experience with radiant waste. deal

with radioactivity, the state economically and responsibly:

1.The storage of nuclear waste has to be such that the stored products can always be relocated.

The term disposal means the safe storage of radioactive material to decay of radioactivity. Practice shows that this is not likely to happen without rearrangement of the substances. All known deposits have been uncertain for some time.

2.The storage of nuclear waste must be made by the federal authority.

exception is a short storage (Voschlag: 3 months).

Economic interests must not jeopardize safety.

3.For each imported radioactive material is on import for final disposal fee to pay. Similarly, for material that is potentially contaminated.

The costs are clearly and directly paid / less incentive for illegal disposed of.

4.Zur determination of the fee to take the costs incurred by the clearing of the camp aces and expect these costs to the amount of stored materials and the previous operating time of the camp highly anticipated on the storage period.

traps for storage actually costs less than was paid, then the excess payment will be refunded after the final disposal. Burden of proof lies with the beneficiaries.

traps for storage costs more than already paid, then these costs be requested by users.

This includes costs resulting from accidents or disasters.

users include owners (including partners / shareholders) and operators of nuclear facilities as well as the users of nuclear power or their successors.

5.All natural persons who are to decide on the handling of radioactive material for the effects to make you personally liable because they bear a special responsibility.

This limitation the policy as for operators and for its investors and shareholders.

6.Wer radioactive material must introduce evidence that apply in the promotion of the radioactive material, the same or stricter rules in Germany and how they are applied without exception. Otherwise, an import is to be refused. (Overall responsibility)

7.The Run radioactive material in Germany is prohibited. (Preventing terrorist abuse)

8.Kernanlagen and bearings must be protected against disasters. Especially against earthquakes, plane crashes or terrorist attacks. Unsafe equipment shall be closed immediately. have to deal

9.Anlagen the radioactive material to ensure that no radioactivity enters the outside. Not even air or waste water.

10.The cost of a worst case scenario must be adequately insured.

11.Verjährung enters with radioactivity has subsided.

This petition does not discuss the suitability of storage facilities.

If you give suggestions (such as keywords or questions) for the online discussion

do this can field use.

Notes:

I consider the points set out here sober considered neutral and for understandable, understandable, useful and necessary.

requires the storage of radioactive substances periods, the human experience are beyond any culture.

To avert unforeseen dangers, it is necessary to design a repository so that it always evacuated and the hazardous materials can be removed.

Where radioactivity in ground water, the affected areas are large areas contaminated for hundreds of thousands of years.

Compare ca.6.000 years ago began in Europe, metal (copper) to process. Tools were still made of stone and bone.

ie, a repository must be designed to move from time to time to. Any other direction is irresponsible.

main concern of this petition:

repository must always be accessible and can be overcome again ordered!

This petition does not discuss the suitability of storage facilities.

The reason for the expenses incurred arises principally with the order and promoting the material, but no later than the import. Therefore, it is necessary to put this event back the necessary funds.

The safe operation of a repository is so important for the welfare of the population that is not the job of a profit-oriented private sector must be left. This must be one for the good of the population targeted government is responsible.

Therefore, set the ultimate disposal to not return home, but directly to pay the import of the material.

The fees for material that is already in circulation must be paid in a transitional phase.

Through trial repository won in the last 40 years, an insight into the risks and costs. If one approach the experimental repositories aces for cost estimation, so it's easy at the expense of about 55,000,000,000,000 € for the next one million years for the stored materials in the Asse. (Estimated: 2.2 billion euro per 40 years)

The comparison is valid since the estimates for stability at the opening of the bearing cup was similarly evaluated as positive for all other bearings are debating today.

Other interesting points:

* drinks from the cup, it feeds not only the Braunschweiger Land but with the Oker and Aller and the Weser with contaminated water.

* A rock to get water resistant is not certain possible - even for several hundred thousand years.

* It is appalling that 50 cars are insured slightly better than a nuclear power plant must be insured (liability).

* Question: What are the technical, however, the emitted material again to fill in the original uranium mines back? - There are probably following the reduction in the original Faces the same risks as domestic mines?