Posted by ndillon on 11/05/09

November's list of open appointments to various commissions, boards, advisory councils and other panels that constitute your state government in action is now available at the Secretary of State's website.  There are over 40 pages in this listing because of the sheer number that expire on 31 December.

Somebody once asked why I post these lists since it seems like I'm encouraging the unwieldy bureaucracy that we're all united against.  I post these lists for the simple reason that until we have enough people in Saint Paul to pull the plug on these agencies, we should be serving on them and bringing our principles to the table.  Many of these boards and panels (think: Met Council) oversee the spending of YOUR money - imagine if they had fiscally conservative majorities?  Additionally, they require less time than running for public office, so they may fit better into people's lives who want to affect matters in the public sphere but can't be a legislative candidate due to family and professional commitments.  Finally, serving on these boards helps our campaign for liberty because the members learn about the workings of state government, can help educate the rest of us on what they learn, and gain experience and credentials to perhaps run for office in the future.

The appointing agencies take many factors into consideration when choosing the members, including race, age, gender, education and home town.  So please check the list and consider applying in an area of personal or professional interest.  I did - so can you.

(My application was declined.)

Posted 11/08/09 nordog Bovey, MN

Thank you for posting that information. You are 100% correct, this is a very great way to push for change from within. It is almost beyond most peoples comprehention how much difference 1 vocal and knowledgeble person can make on these boards and commisssions. I have been doing this for years and I encourage everyone who can to grab as many of these positions as posible, this battle needs to be fought on every front possible.

Posted by ndillon on 10/30/09

I recently submitted a letter to the editor of the Strib.  I didn't think it would be published by them, so I'll publish it instead.

To the Editor:

I was intrigued by the coincidence that the Sunday August 30, 2009 edition contained two cover stories related to "rights" because of the differences between them despite the apparently common topic.

"Flight fiasco aids cause of air passengers," refreshed demands for a federally mandated Airline Passenger Bill of Rights while "'Her Rights Were Violated'" told of a woman who had medical treatment forced upon her despite refusals by her and her fiancee.

Are these truly the same kind of "rights"?

When comparing these stories, it appears there are many times we use the word "right" when it's really a privilege to which we feel entitled or upon which we have become reliant. Delay-free air travel doesn't meet the threshold of a right, nor does low fee credit cards (recently passed) or guarantees on new homes (pending in the Senate).

I am most disturbed that my fellow citizens demand the "right" to working toilets on a delayed plane but remain silent on the violations of their Constitutional rights during the security procedures they endure to access that flight. They dutifully remove their shoes, produce decanted moisturizers, and submit to random pat-downs but it's the wait in a warm fuselage they want redressed.

Airlines don't want unhappy customers, so why don't they voluntarily serve food and water or open the cabin doors for fresh air? Their actions are restricted by safety and security mandates imposed upon them by the federal government. Instead of a passenger bill of rights that would heap more requirements upon the air industry, what if we addressed the current laws that limit what they may do on their airplanes?

Given that the purpose of government is to secure our rights, we should not use it to impose mandates on conveniences and never tolerate it to take them away.

Sincerely,
Norann Dillon

Posted by ndillon on 06/16/09

Last weekend, I had the opportunity to address the Minneapolis Chapter of Veterans for Peace.  They work to restrain government from intervening in the internal affairs of other nations (among other aims). Sounds a lot like one of Campaign for Liberty's planks - a non-interventionalist foreign policy...

Every year, VFP holds a vigil outside the gates of Fort Benning, GA to protest the School of the Americas, now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

HR 2367 would suspend the authority for the school.  It currently has 50 sponsors.  I have been very impressed with the grassroots lobbying that we have been able to do on the Audit the Fed issue.  I humbly ask that everyone take a few minutes to contact their Representative and urge them to sign on as a sponsor to HR 2367 (or thank them if they already have) - and then share this with your networks.

Based on the sponsors, there is bi-partisan support.  It seems like a worthwhile effort and likely victory.  But most of all, I like the opportunity to support those who served in our country's armed forces.

Please contact your Representative in support of HR2367.

www.veteransforpeace.org

(from Thomas.gov)
H.R.2567
Title: To suspend the authority for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (the successor institution to the United States Army School of the Americas) in the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] (introduced 5/21/2009) Cosponsors (50)
Latest Major Action: 5/21/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.SUMMARY AS OF:
5/21/2009--Introduced.

Latin America Military Training Review Act - Directs the Secretary of the Army to suspend operation of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (Institute). Suspends the authority of the Secretary of Defense to operate such an education and training facility until submission of a report containing the results of an investigation in response to violations of human rights to which training at such Institute contributed.

Establishes: (1) a joint congressional task force to assess appropriate education and training for DOD to provide to military personnel of Latin American nations; and (2) a commission to investigate activities of the United States Army School of the Americas and its successor institution, the Institute.

Posted by ndillon on 06/05/09

[Thanks to Mark in CD6 for sharing this by email.  nd]

Ron Paul's Statement on H Res 489 Regarding Tiananmen Square, June 3, 2009:

I rise to oppose this unnecessary and counter-productive resolution regarding the 20th anniversary of the incident in China's Tiananmen Square. In addition to my concerns over the content of this legislation, I strongly object to the manner in which it was brought to the floor for a vote. While the resolution was being debated on the House floor, I instructed my staff to obtain a copy so that I could read it before the vote. My staff was told by no less than four relevant bodies within the House of Representatives that the text was not available for review and would not be available for another 24 hours. It is unacceptable for Members of the House of Representatives to be asked to vote on legislation that is not available for them to read!

As to the substance of the resolution, I find it disturbing that the House is going out of its way to meddle in China's domestic politics, which is none of our business, while ignoring the many pressing issues in our own country that definitely are our business.

This resolution "calls on the People's Republic of China to invite full and independent investigations into the Tiananmen Square crackdown, assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross..." Where do we get the authority for such a demand? I wonder how the US government would respond if China demanded that the United Nations conduct a full and independent investigation into the treatment of detainees at the US-operated Guantanamo facility?
The resolution "calls on the legal authorities of People's Republic of China to review immediately the cases of those still imprisoned for participating in the 1989 protests for compliance with internationally recognized standards of fairness and due process in judicial proceedings." In light of US government's extraordinary renditions of possibly hundreds of individuals into numerous secret prisons abroad where they are held indefinitely without charge or trial, one wonders what the rest of the world makes of such US demands. It is hard to exercise credible moral authority in the world when our motto toward foreign governments seems to be "do as we say, not as we do."

While we certainly do not condone government suppression of individual rights and liberties wherever they may occur, why are we not investigating these abuses closer to home and within our jurisdiction? It seems the House is not interested in investigating allegations that US government officials and employees approved and practiced torture against detainees. Where is the Congressional investigation of the US-operated "secret prisons" overseas? What about the administration's assertion of the right to detain individuals indefinitely without trial? It may be easier to point out the abuses and shortcomings of governments overseas than to address government abuses here at home, but we have the constitutional obligation to exercise our oversight authority in such matters. I strongly believe that addressing these current issues would be a better use of our time than once again condemning China for an event that took place some 20 years ago.

Heroically, he stands up for non-intervention and against hypocrisy on this resolution that passed 396 to 1.

Posted by ndillon on 06/02/09

Each month, the Secretary of State releases openings on various boards and commissions in the state.  Until we have strong representation at the state capital and can eliminate this bureaucratic nonsense (such as the Task Force to make recommendations on forms or the Board to make recommendations for another Board), we can participate on them and bring our principles of limited government to the other members, and the spending and regulations that come out of them.

Look, apply, engage.

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/june_2009_press_release.pdf