Colbert is in his glory declaiming against raising the SCHIP funding.  He says it would offer insurance: 

to millions of uninsured kids whose parents make just a little too much to receive Medicaid.  Now I don’t see the point.  If these kids’ parents tried hard enough, I’m sure they could get poor enough to qualify.

Treat yourself to the whole rant. 

(And thanks to tonva for bringing the video to my attention.)

Just when I was looking forward to watching a small-time butt-biter drag Rudy Giuliani through the dirt, my hopes have been shattered.  The petition drive in California to get voters there to split their electoral votes between parties is gasping its last.  I know.  I should be elated at that development, but I have to admit I wasn’t very worried that it would pass.  California’s a Democratic state.  Why would the voters there pass anything so idiotic?

Anyway, it turns out that the revelations about Chet Hurth’s contribution to the petition drive sent it into its death throes.  Thomas Hiltachk, who wrote the petition, has pulled his support, as have the other major backers.

“‘Shambles’ is the wrong word,” said strategist Marty Wilson, who curtailed his fundraising efforts weeks ago. “The campaign never got off the ground.”

Hurth must be breathing one huge sigh of relief. 

But I have to wonder if the decision to end the drive came from its instigator?  Might that be Rudy Giuliani?

Governor Matt “baby” Blunt still doesn’t seem to understand the Missouri Constitution. Or, has he ever bothered to read it?

Article I, Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

And, there’s this:

Article IX, Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

With all that, why is he bothering with this?

JEFFERSON CITY – Gov. Matt Blunt today unveiled Faith-Based Missouri, his new initiative to increase cooperation between state government and faith and community-based groups in providing services to Missourians in need….

….Blunt announced the first step of Faith-Based Missouri, a five person team he charged with studying how we can improve relations between state government and religious and secular charities.

The team will include three Missourians with life-long ties to faith-based communities and state employees who share the governor’s commitment to building Faith-Based Missouri.  The community team members will travel the state to meet with leaders in Missouri churches and charities to learn:

  1) what we are doing right

  2) what we are doing wrong

  3) what we can do to encourage greater cooperation

Well, according to the Missouri Constitution you can’t give them any funds, can you?

He must be trying to shore up his eroding base.

The press release continues:

….The governor and agency directors will rely on the Faith-Based Missouri team for guidance and suggestions as to how the state can better transform lives and empower Missourians….

How about operating government with a premise other than “suffering is good for everyone but the advantaged?”

The following individuals have been appointed to the “team”:

The governor announced the following Missourians have agreed to serve on the inaugural Faith-Based Missouri team:

Dr. Reynaldo Anderson, of St. Louis, is an assistant professor of education at Harris-Stowe University. Dr. Anderson has published numerous articles regarding the African American experience. His life has been varied with involvement in the United States military, grassroots political activity, church and academic research and study. He is a dedicated member of Saint Peter AME Church in St. Louis.

Rev. Andrew Rollins III, of Kansas City is an ordained Itinerant Elder in the AME Church whose family has a long history of ministry and community service. As a youth he was nurtured on the civil rights movement and at an early age he became concerned about the state, future and destiny of his community.  He believes the mission of the church should be holistic ministering to the spirit, and soul and body.

Sheriff Greg White, of Cole County, is an ordained Baptist minister with a lifetime of experience in serving his fellow Americans. He understands how to bridge religious and cultural divides, and has some innovative ideas on how faith-based organizations can serve Missourians through disaster response coordination.

Ed Martin, of Jefferson City, serves as Gov. Matt Blunt’s Chief of Staff.  Martin was the Father McGivney Fellow for Rights of Conscience with Americans United for Life and is an active member in the Catholic Church. He previously served as director of the Human Rights Office for the Archdiocese of St. Louis and as chairman of the Papal Visit Committee for Social Concerns for Pope John Paul II’s visit to St. Louis.

Angel McCormick Franks, of St. Louis, is the Director of the Office of Supplier and Workforce Diversity and has traveled the state working to promote diversity within the state government and improve the opportunities for women and minorities to access state employment opportunities and state contracts.

Obviously Ed Martin isn’t going to be relying on the Missouri judiciary for help on this particular task.

Until the last few days, the only celebrity status Charles “Chet” Hurth from Union, MO had enjoyed was for being sued ten years ago when he was a law student at St. Louis U. for biting a female law student on the butt–so hard she had to seek medical treatment.  Now Hurth, the city attorney for tiny New Haven is embroiled in something that’s grabbing headlines in the San Francisco Chronicle.

You’re probably aware by now of the latest dirty trick the Republicans are up to, a petition initiative drive in California.  They want Californians to vote in June on whether to split California’s electoral votes in the 2008 presidential election by awarding electoral votes by each congressional district rather than by the winner-take-all rules that have applied.

Under its proposed district-by-district system, Kerry – who won California’s popular vote in 2004 – would have received just 33 electoral votes, and Republican President Bush would have earned 22 votes – more than the number awarded in Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21) or Ohio (20).

 

On September 24th, the group running the petition drive, Californians for Equal Representation, recorded its first and only contribution, $175,000 received on September 11th from Take Initiative America LLC in … Union, MO?  The registered agent for TIA is Hurth. 

An anomaly immediately jumps out:  TIA was formed on September 10th, and the only thing it has ever done is pass that 175 thou to Californians for Equal Representation.  It seems unlikely in the extreme that Hurth, who’s never had any interest in politics, much less those in California, would suddenly form a “grassroots group” to contribute a hefty sum to a petition drive in that state. In fact, until last March, he had never contributed to a political campaign.   And who got that contribution last March?  Hurth gave $2300 to Rudy Giuliani’s campaign.

He is one of several people connected to the California petition drive who are Giuliani supporters.  Democratic groups assert that the petition initiative drive itself is a Republican effort, probably backed specifically by Giuliani.  Giuliani’s campaign denies any connection to the petition. 

Democrats further believe that the contribution from TIA LLC is money laundering.  It is illegal in California to contribute money through an intermediary without disclosing the true donor.   California’s Fair Political Practices Commission is looking into the matter.

Democrats further insist that it is not all that surprising that Hurth would be serving clandestine interests.  They note that in 2004, he fronted for Choices for America, a conservative group that worked to get Nader on the ballot in key states where Kerry might win.

Republicans respond to these charges by basically saying, so what? 

Kevin Eckery, the spokesman for the proposed ballot measure, said “whether it’s a front for presidential candidates – even if it was, what’s the big deal?”

“We’ve said all along that some of the people we would approach for fundraising are contributors to various presidential candidates,” he said. “If somebody wants to support us because we’re trying to create a voting system that’s fairer … what’s the problem?”

It matters, say the Dems, for two reasons.  First, the petition organizers have been vociferously repeating, up and and down the state, that the drive is “by Californians, for Californians.”  And yet their only contribution so far is from Union, MO (population 7700), from a company that is almost certainly a front group for Republican interests.

It matters, secondly, because money laundering is taken seriously in California politics.  Two major fines have been levied in recent years ($95,000 in one case, $135,000 in another) for exactly this kind of offense.  In fact, the Sacramento attorney who wrote the proposed ballot measure, Thomas Hiltachk, unsuccessfully defended the woman who was fined $135,000.  So he ought to know better than to be up to the same tricks in this case.

The Democrats who are publicizing this illegal and underhanded funding are issuing a challenge to Californians for Equal Representation:  Come clean by noon on Monday (high noon!), or we will file a legal complaint forcing you to reveal who is the hidden hand behind this contribution.

Meanwhile, Hurth is lying low and refusing to answer his phone.  All we know about him is that he bit that law student in the bar that night ten years ago, then high fived his friends.  Hurth opined that he didn’t mean to hurt her and that she should have considered it a compliment.  After all, he had done the same thing to women at two fraternity parties at Vanderbilt and nobody sued.

The jurors didn’t take it as lightly.  They gave her $2,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in punitive damages.  This case may eventually make that one look like peanuts.

( – promoted by Clark)

…whether or not he will veto the SCHIP bill.  He is almost certain to veto as he has promised multiple times to do.  What I can’t figure out is just how he squares that with his family values persona.  His argument is that too many children will drop private insurance for SCHIP because they qualify. Seems to think it could even lead to a government takeover of health care. The SEIU has this to say about the Bush and this issue:

“President Bush has a choice to make,” said Dennis Rivera, chair of SEIU Healthcare. “Either he believes children should have healthcare or he doesn’t. Either he believes we are a compassionate, caring society or he doesn’t. Either he respects the members of our Congress and their leadership, or he doesn’t. If he vetoes this bill, he is telling millions of kids that he simply does not care about them.”

Anyway, the compromise bill for SCHIP passed the House by a non-veto proof margin, and yesterday passed the Senate 67-29 in favor of increasing spending on the program to $60 billion over the next five years.  This would be double of what the Decider is willing to allocate.  But it would allow four million children of the nine million currently uninsured to receive health coverage.  The additional spending would be covered by a 61 cent increased on a pack of cigarettes.

The vote in the Senate seems to point to a Senate override of a Decider Veto. Both Missouri Senators voted for the measure and we hope Bond will also join in a vote to override.  The House does not have the votes for override at this time.  Missouri representatives voting for the measure are Lacy Clay, Russ Carnahan, Ike Skelton, Emanual Cleaver and Joann Emerson.  Voting against were Sam Graves, Todd Akin, Roy Blunt, and Kenny Hulsof. It is up to us to flood Nancy Pelosi’s office with calls to campaign the House for override votes with all due energy

The veto is anticipated and Congress will continue funding SCHIP at its current level until mid-November as part of another bill keeping federal agencies in operating funds beyond September 30.

The fallout continues from the deadly rampage by Blackwater mercenaries against Iraqi civilians on September 16 that left at least 11 Iraqis dead. Blackwater insists that their employees fired in response to coming under attack. The Iraqis claim the Blackwater personnel were unprovoked when they opened fire on civilians at a busy traffic circle while escorting a State Department convoy through Baghdad.

The September 16 incident set off a firestorm and at one point the government of Iraq said all Blackwater personnel had to leave the country and the company had to cease operating inside Iraq. This edict did not stand and Blackwater is once again roaming the streets, terrifying the populace with their mere presence and undermining whatever the hell it is the mission is supposed to be, and sowing seeds of hostility with the populace that prompt attacks against all Americans, thereby putting American G.I.’s at heightened risk.

The DoD on Wednesday announced that the Pentagon has sent a team of investigators to Iraq to probe security contractors and their operations in Iraq. In addition, a memo was sent to the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan reminding them that they have the prerogative to court martial mercenaries working under contract with the U.S. military if/when those mercenaries violate the Rules of Engagement that govern the U.S. military. Gates wanted to make sure that the mercenaries and commanders all understood that the military can prosecute their contractors. Gates, testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee, on Wednesday said he also wanted to know whether the military has the resources to investigate private security personnel under contract with the DoD for alleged crimes. “My concern is whether there has been sufficient accountability and oversight,” Gates said.

In the memo, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told military commanders that they’re responsible for monitoring contractors under their control and charging those who violate rules of engagement.

“Commanders have UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) authority to disarm, apprehend, and detain DoD contractors suspected of having committed a felony offense in violation of the RUF (Rules on the Use of Force),” Gordon wrote. The memo was dated Tuesday.

England said commanders should review contractors’ standard operating procedures and make any necessary changes to the way they authorize force to “minimize the risk of innocent civilian causalities or unnecessary destruction of civilian property.”

The State Department hasn’t distributed a similar memo, and it is unclear what, if any, U.S. law applies to the actions of its contractors.

So far, no Defense Department contractor has been charged under U.S. law, and no security contracts have been suspended for violations, Morrell said.

Yeah. It really is as thoroughly and completely screwed up as it sounds.

Four and a half years into Iraq, and six years into Afghanistan, they have decided it’s time to determine what, exactly, to do with mercenaries who attack and murder civilians without provocation, or otherwise commit actions that undermine the efforts of the United States to salvage something – anything – from this fiasco so we can claim some sort of semblance of a shadow of a specter of a pale imitation of victory™ and get the hell out of there.

The Iraqi Interior Ministry has sent the investigation of the incident to a magistrate and is looking at possible criminal charges, although they may be hamstrung by the ghost of Paul Bremer and the CPA, in the form of Order 17, which essentially gave mercenaries immunity to run amok, unencumbered by the rule of law.  Under Order 17, mercenaries can kill at will, with little or no fear of legal, or even civil, repercussions.

This week, Iraqi lawmakers began considering a proposal that would withdraw the provisions of Order 17 from Iraqi law and make security contractors/mercenaries accountable under the Iraqi system of justice.  Iraqis have complained bitterly for years that the mercenary army is unnecessarily aggressive and damages property with impunity and mistreats and kills Iraqis with reckless abandon. 

Point of Clarification:  The mercenaries involved in the September 16 violence were under contract to the State Department, and that incident is under joint Iraqi – State Department investigation.  DoD has no authority to investigate or try the Blackwater mercenaries involved.  Gates, being competent, and not beholden to nor under the sway of Cheney or Bush, is looking for problems before someone else finds them and uses them against him.  (I don’t like the man, but I can not help but respect the talent).  At State, on the other hand, the inept and outpaced Condi is still carrying her bosses water,  overtly and contemptuously stonewalling congressional oversight into the incident.  While the DoD does have contracts with Blackwater, the State Department outspends the DoD on Blackwater contracts  at a rate of approximately 8:1.

The private-army aspect of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been controversial since the first days in Afghanistan, and there has been no shortage of animosity between the professional military and the mercenary army.  To date, no personnel under DoD contract have been charged under U.S. law, and no contracts have been suspended for violations.  The military has been taken to task though.  Two Air Force officers were brought up on charges of assault and conduct unbecoming following a run-in between the officers and Blackwater personnel on a road outside Kabul in September 2006.  The charges were later dismissed.

 

The bloodletting two weeks ago has set up a clash between the Pentagon and the State Department.    The tensions have been long-simmering, and the events of September 16 turned up the heat.  “The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they’ve built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event,” said one senior military official in Iraq.  “This is a nightmare. We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we’re trying to have an impact for the long term.”

 

In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and government officials, many expressed anger and concern over the shootings in Nisoor Square, in Baghdad’s Mansour neighborhood. Some worried it could undermine the military’s efforts to stabilize Iraq this year with an offensive involving thousands of reinforcements.

 

“This is a big mess that I don’t think anyone has their hands around yet,” said another U.S. military official. “It’s not necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held accountable. Iraqis hate them, the troops don’t particularly care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude, which means they rarely listen to anyone — even the folks that patrol the ground on a daily basis.”

 

Most officials spoke on condition of anonymity because there are at least three ongoing investigations of Blackwater’s role in the shootings. There are also sensitive discussions between various U.S. agencies and the Iraqi government over the future of Blackwater and other private security firms in Iraq.

 

Teddy Spain, a retired Army Colonel was willing to speak on the record.  “I personally was concerned about any of the civilians running around on the battlefield during my time there.  My main concern was their lack of accountability when things went wrong.”

 

Several commanding officers spoke frankly on condition of anonymity. 

 

…”Given their record of recklessness,” said the senior U.S. commander, “I’m not sure any senior military officer here would want responsibility for them.”

 

…”They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers. Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later,” said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to the Sept. 16 shootings, the officer added, “None of us believe they were engaged, but we are all carrying their black eyes.”

 

…”Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of control,” said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq. “They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to play by the same rules everyone else tries to play by.”

 

…”Many of us feel that when Blackwater and other groups conduct military missions, they should be subject to the same controls under which the Army operates,” said Marc Lindemann, who served in Iraq with the 4th Infantry Division and is now an officer in the New York National Guard and a state prosecutor.

 

…”The deaths of contractors from Blackwater helped precipitate the debacle in Fallujah in 2004 and now the loss of Blackwater is causing disruptions in the war effort in 2007,” a military intelligence officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Why are we creating new vulnerabilities by relying on what are essentially mercenary forces?”

 

The lousy reputation Blackwater has among members of the U.S. military has led to renewed debate over whether the DoD should handle State’s security contracts.  The Department of Defense (understanding what security protocols should involve) has a more strident procedure for licensing and oversight of personnel under contract to their agency, the DoD also has more detailed incident reporting procedures when weapons are discharged.  In addition, the military investigates promptly when incidents occur or allegations are made against mercenaries in their employ. 

 

A Pentagon source insisted that “We are really making State respond, conduct an investigation and come up with recommendations.” The source said that in Washington the atmosphere surrounding the confrontation between State and the pentagon is calm and professional but, referring to Iraq, said, “There is probably a bit more emotion going on in theater.” 

***************

 

As if Blackwater needed another revelation (they are also under investigation for smuggling weapons into Iraq that ultimately ended up pointed at American G.I.’s) the New York Times reported Thursday that mercenaries from Blackwater USA have been involved in a far higher rate of shootings while guarding and escorting American diplomats than other companies providing comparable services. 

 

The rate of Blackwater violence is at least twice that of DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, the other security companies operating in Iraq.  Blackwater’s hired guns are just that, discharging weapons, on average, twice every convoy.  (The other companies frequently escort convoys completely without incident.)

“You can find any number of people, particularly in uniform, who will tell you that they do see Blackwater as a company that promotes a much more aggressive response to things than other main contractors do,” a senior American official said.  “Is it the operating environment or something specific about Blackwater?” asked one government official. “My best guess is that it is both.”

  While the bloody rampage at the Nisour traffic roundabout was the most shocking in the level of wanton killing, the modern-day Pinkerton’s of  Blackwater are under investigation in six other episodes that left ten people dead and at least 15 wounded. 

Slowly, American officials are accepting the position that Blackwater’s behavior in Iraq is counterproductive to the stated ‘mission’ by fueling resentment among the local population.

“They’re repeat offenders, and yet they continue to prosper in Iraq,” said Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who has been broadly critical of the role of contractors in Iraq. “It’s really affecting attitudes toward the United States when you have these cowboy guys out there. These guys represent the U.S. to them and there are no rules of the game for them.”

Secretary of Defense Gates was in front of Congress asking for $190 Billion for the war effort for  FY 2008.  Congress is hammering out the budget now.

While the American public may not yet be ready to cut off funding to the U.S. military for the occupation of Iraq, I seriously doubt that there would be great wailing and bleating and rending of cloth and gnashing of teeth if, just for starters, the monies in the budget allotted to Blackwater  fell victim to Congresses one true power.

We’ve been pretty critical of Senator McCaskill

For twenty years, Jim Roos owned a three-family home in the 3000 block of Lafayette in St. Louis.  It wasn’t a good neighborhood.  In fact, his rental property sat in the middle of what was practically a moonscape of burned out and collapsing buildings.  There were a few other homes still standing, but some of them were used as drug dealing bases.

Still, Roos and another nearby property owner soldiered on, making improvements to the houses they owned–he added a porch and fenced the backyard–and regularly contacting the police about the drug dealers.  A redevelopment plan was proposed, but it sat on the books for ten years.  Meanwhile, redevelopment did take hold on a small scale in that neighborhood–enough to tempt the people who’d gotten the original plan through the Board of Aldermen to perk up and take an interest.  Now that the neighborhood was becoming viable again, that developer wanted the vacant properties–and Roos’s house.

Roos battled city hall, even to picketing his alderman’s house.  To no avail.  He was forced to sell that property.  But the experience turned him into a crusader against eminent domain abuse.  He is part of a group called MEDAC, which is aiming to collect 250,000 signatures by the first week in May to get an initiative on the 2008 ballot for two constitutional amendments.  Those amendments would forbid taking property by eminent domain for any private use and would forbid using eminent domain to remove blight.

That word “blight” is like the word “many”.  How much is many?  Three?  Fifteen?  Fifty thousand?  What’s blight?  The law doesn’t define it.  And even if it did, why should that developer be allowed to take Roos’s un-blighted rental property after Jim had hung in through thick and thin for twenty years?

In fact, it used to be that no developer could take a person’s property by eminent domain in Missouri.  The Bill of Rights forbade it:  “Private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation unless by consent of the owner.”  That was in the good ole days.

But about fifty years ago, the Missouri Constitution was amended to read:  “Blighted, substandard or insanitary areas may be taken by eminent domain for redevelopment.”  The key word, “areas”, let the genie out of the bottle because it allowed developers not only to take property, but to take the good property along with the bad.  The genie’s been up to a lot of mischief since  that amendment pulled the cork on his bottle.

The debacle in Sunset Hills in 2004 brought the abuses to public attention.  The doom of those property owners was apparently sealed, even as they fought the buyout, by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2005 (Suzette Kelo v. New London, CT), which ruled that it was constitutional to take Kelo’s property as part of a waterfront redevelopment project, even though the property was not blighted. Eventually, public outcry caused the developer in the Sunset Hills havoc to lose his financing.  But much of the damage could not be repaired.

The legislature took a stab at it last year, but lawmakers still allowed as how it was fine to take good property from an unwilling seller as long as 51 percent of the property in that area was “blighted.”  In that respect, the legislature failed to do what was needed.

They did forbid declaring rural areas blighted and taking property solely for economic development. Those two requirements have been helpful.  In fact, it was the requirement banning use of eminent domain solely for economic development that saved property owners in Clayton from being forced to sell to Centene.

Despite those improvements wrought by the ’06 law,  the folks at MEDAC learned that the legislative process is not the way to go if they want reform.  Only a constitutional amendment will protect Missouri’s property owners for certain.  So you’ll find them on weekends at community events seeking signatures.

They’ll be at Francis Park near Chippewa and Hampton this Sunday afternoon for the “Art in the Park” event, and they’ll be at the Soulard Market Festival Saturday and Sunday, Oct. 6 and 7.  Anyone who wants more information can call Roos at 771-3509.