By Contributing Writer Smileys Pundit

This is the first of what I hope to be several postings regarding Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four of his fellow terrorists in federal court in New York for the 9/11 attacks.  This focus will focus on the logic (or lack of it) in Holder's decision, based upon his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Holder had told the Committee that trying the defendants in federal district court in New York City gave the Justice Department the "best chance to prosecute" them.  Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) asked:

You have repeatedly said that your decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Article III courts is because that is where you have the best chance to prosecute. . . How could it be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before a military commission and be executed?

Holder gave a forceful response:

The determination I make of where I think we can best try these cases does not depend on the whims or desires of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. . . I have decided Article III Courts are the best place to do that.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not making this decision.  The attorney general of the United States is making this decision.

Holder's answer sounded tough:  he wasn't going to let some terrorist determine where he was going to be tried; Holder was going to make that decision.  Holder would show KSM who was running things here, and it wasn't KSM.  The last time I heard of anyone being that tough was as a child, when I read about Br'er Bear and Br'er Fox ignoring Br'er Rabbit's plea not to be thrown into the briar patch.  I can hear KSM's pleas now: 

"Please, General Holder, please don't try me in New York; anything but that.  Torture me, waterboard me, keep me in Gitmo, put me before a military commission, but in the name of Allah, don't put me in front of a jury.  And afford me all those constitutional protections.

And discovery rights.

Have you no humanity?"

A SQUEAKER:

THE VOTE:  220-215

They needed 218; they got 220.  The landmark health-care reform bill now goes to the Senate.

The Stupak Amendment, which took federally-funded abortions out of this bill, was considered the key in getting the final needed votes to get to the 218 needed to pass.

GOP Chairman Michael Steele says, "If the Senate has any common sense at all, this bill won't see the light of day."

You knew House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wouldn't have called the bill if she didn't know she had the votes.

After months of contintious health-care townhall meetings across the country, the Democrat-led House of Representatives passes  the Healthcare Reform Bill; now it goes to the Senate.

Some facts and questions:

• $1.2 Trillion (what's the guess the cost will be much more than this?)
• Paid Abortions taken out
• Insurance for illegal immigrants taken out
• Americans will be forced to buy insurance polities
• Public Option-Yes
• 96% of citizens under 65 will be insured
• Will this mean we will lose our current coverage and our doctors?

VIDEO HERE

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.

At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.

The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation's eligible population having insurance.

To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.

My Cities 92.9 Commentary this morning:

Well, the first day to file nominating petitions to run for office in 2010 was yesterday.  Let's do a rundown right after we talk about recent opinion polls.

Last week, there was a poll showing current Governor, Democrat Pat Quinn, with a sizable lead over his Primary challenger, State Controller Dan Hynes.  I thought that a bit odd, since Quinn has been pretty much a train wreck.  But, he's been good advocate for Veterans and their families and has gotten some good press coverage for that; but other than that, he's the Governor of another train wreck, the State of Illinois.

Thankfully for Quinn, he is running against a nice man with zero personality; Dan Hynes.

A new poll just out, however, runs counter to the poll last week; this one has Hynes closing the gap considerably against Quinn.  

Republicans have their own concerns with a huge line-up of candidates for Governor; and a real battle for Obama's Senate seat on the horizon, with a chance for the GOP to regain this seat.

First the GOP candidates for Governor:  here we go; local favorite with a slight lead in the same poll that showed Quinn leading over Hynes, Bloomington's Senator Bill Brady; from DuPage County, Senator Kirk Dillard and DuPage Co. Board Chairman Bob Shillerstrom; businessman Andy Andrewjewski, political consultant  Dan Proft, and now, former Attorney General Jim Ryan, who ran against Rod Blagojevich in 2002, in a year where it wasn't a plus to have a last name of Ryan.

If the GOP can get through this Primary with the winner having any money left; they face a  not so mighty Quinn, or a "I don't need Nyquil to put me to sleep candidate" Dan Hynes

 There are some possibilities here for the GOP. 

Here's what the entire GOP faces, however,  around the country. . .  and Illinois will be no exception.  The Libertarian Party has a candidate for Governor and it's Bloomington local businessman, Lex Green.  The Constitution Party also has a candidate.  Will these for lack of better word, "fringe" parties, be serious enough factors to hurt the GOP chances to win the Governor's race? 

Does the Libertarian Party have any chance on it's own, to win the Governor's race?    This race may come down to the disgust of the average voter with both of the mainstream parties, and this scenario may be played out around the country:

Take a New York House seat as an example: 

The LA Times has an article out today entitled, "NY race at epicenter of GOP mutiny"

Conservative voters in this NY House District special election on Nov. 3,   are rejecting the GOP nominee.  The conservatives are backing a third party nominee. Splitting the vote, and giving the Democrat candidate a slight lead in recent opinion polls.

"The conservative rebellion in northern New York, is showing that the anger among disaffected voters, which became prominent this summer during the "tea party" anti-spending rallies around the country ending in Washington and at town hall meetings on health care, has become a baffling political force that even Republicans are having a hard time harnessing."

The fight on the right has also made this NY district the epicenter of a national debate about the future of the Republican Party -- leaving party leaders to ask whether they are better off emphasizing the GOP's small-government and socially conservative values, or trying to broaden their appeal to reach independent and moderate voters

 Many major GOP figures are using New York's special House election to send a signal that they want the party to turn toward the right. Former Republican Vice-Presidential Sarah Palin herself has rebuffed the New York Republican candidate, who was hand-picked by local GOP leaders and who supports abortion rights and gay marriage. Instead, Palin has endorsed the conservative alternative, Doug Hoffman. So have former House Republican leader Dick Armey of Texas and former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

Newt Ginrich, who is said to be eying a run for the White House, and many other Republican leaders say that if the party is to win nationally and in swing districts like the one in New York , it cannot move too far to the right.

"We have to decide which business we are in," Gingrich said on his website after conservatives derided his endorsement of the moderate candidate.  "If we are in the business of feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed, then I probably made the wrong decision."  Said Newt.

The GOP is at a cross-roads. 

From Obama's US Senate Seat where moderate GOP candidate Mark Kirk seems to have a chance to take this seat back, to whomever the GOP Primary winner is in the Governor's race. It's not only a race between Republicans and Democrats; but a bigger race is shaping up for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

By Contributing Writer, Smileys Pundit

[The inaugural address of John F. Kennedy stands out for its eloquence.  The substance of that address is far different from the ideas of our current, also eloquent, president.  I sometimes wondered what JFK's address would have looked like had it been given by Barack Obama.  I think it might have read like this.]  

            [My Fellow Americans], we observe today not a celebration of state, but a victory of progressivism-symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning-signifying hope, as well as change.  For I have sworn before you and whatever Supreme Being may exist the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed while they were still waiting for Us.

            The world is very different now.  For humankind holds in its mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of economic inequality and all forms of human, animal and plant life.  And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our progressive forebears fought are still at issue around the globe-the belief that the entitlements of the masses come not from the hand of God but from the generosity of an enlightened state.

            We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of the progressive movement.  Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-taking power in this century, frightened by war, intimidated by a hard and bitter peace, ashamed of our typically white heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those rights to government programs to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

            Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall discount any price, shirk any burden, evade any hardship, betray any friend, appease any foe, in order to assure the avoidance of responsibility for the integrity and safety of any nation not governed by a progressive leader.

            This much we pledge-and more.

            To those old allies on the left, whose cultural and secular origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful comrades.  United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures.  Divided, there is little we can do-for we dare not meet the vast right-wing conspiracy at odds and split asunder.

            To those new progressive States whom we welcome to the ranks of the enlightened, we pledge our word that colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron capitalist tyranny.  We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view.  But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own revolution-and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly clung to their guns ended up having them confiscated.

            To those peoples, including my brother, in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves to our money, by drastically curbing greenhouse gas emissions while they do not, for whatever period is required-not because nobody else is doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is egalitarian.  If a progressive society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot and should not save the few who are rich.

            To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge-to convert our good words into good deeds-by helping progressive leaders stay in office beyond their constitutional terms of office and by accepting their stifling of reactionary opposition, no matter how widespread-to assist progressive leaders and governments in casting off the chains of capitalist oppression.  But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers.  Let all our progressive neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose reaction or opposition anywhere in the Americas.  And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to generate its own progressive leaders.

            To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support-to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective-to strengthen its shield of the new potential nuclear powers, i.e. Iran and North Korea and the weak, i.e. the Palestinians-and to enlarge the area in which its writ circumscribing the actions of the greedy existing nuclear powers seeking to preserve their oligarchy, may run.

            Finally, to those nations who have wrongly perceived themselves as our adversary, due to the failed policies of my predecessor, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

            We dare not provoke them with excessive armaments and unilateral diplomacy.  For only when our apologies and concessions are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that the adversary relationship is not our fault.

            But neither can great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course-overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, rightly alarmed by the spread of the deadly atom into the hands of those who have threatened war with newly developed weapons, yet unwilling to prevent that deadly spread.

            So let us hit the reset button-remembering on our side that civility and apology are not signs of weakness, and the sincerity of apologies is always subject to proof.  Let us never concede out of fear.  But let us never fear to concede.

            Let us and potential new nuclear powers explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

            We will formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms-beginning with our own-and bring the U.S. power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

            Let all nations seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, reduce our carbon footprint, eradicate climate change, and encourage the arts and commerce in environmentally friendly ways.

            Let all unite to heed in all corners of the earth the commands of an ancient prophet-to "undo the heavy burdens...and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let all join in creating a new world of law, where the strong are controlled, and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

            All this must be finished in the first 100 days; if not, then in the first 1,000 days; but certainly in the first term of this administration; and extended forever on this planet.  Let us begin.

            In my hands, my fellow citizens, more than in yours, will rest the final success or failure of our course.  Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its duty as citizens of the world.  The hopes of young Americans answering the call to world service surround the globe.

            Now the trumpet summons us again-not as a call to bear arms, because arms are evil; not as a call to battle, which is to be avoided at all costs-but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"-a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, financial inequality, and war itself.

            Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all humanity?  Will you join in that historic effort?

            In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of advancing revolution in its hour of maximum need.  I do not shrink from this responsibility-I welcome it.  I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation.  The energy, the faith, the Hope, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it-and the glow from that fire can truly light the world as fully as an Olympic torch, even though it will be harder to see from Rio than from Chicago.

            And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you-I will show you all that it can and should do.  Those of you who are wealthy, do not ask what you can do for your country-I will tell you: pay higher taxes as your fair share; show your patriotism by allowing us to spread your wealth around.

            My fellow citizens of the world: ask what America will do for you and what together we can to for the equalization of humankind.

            Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of benefit which we have told you to expect of Us, the Ones we have all been waiting for.  With equality our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we have just now with my election begun to love, asking the blessing of history and the Media's help, but knowing that here on earth the progressive movement's work must truly be our own.

What's the only Illinois statewide constitutional office with an uncontested Primary race?

What GOP statewide candidate had Mitt Romney come in for a fundraiser, and now rumor has it this race has caught the eye of another national GOP icon.  I hear Karl Rove is coming in for him in a northern suburb in November? Answer:  State Senator Dan Rutherford

What Governor came from the Illinois State Treasurer's office? Current Governor Pat Quinn

What US Senate candidate, vying for Obama's former sear and leading the polls, came from the Illinois State Treasurer's office? Alexi Giannoulias

Interesting that oue Illinois State Treasurer's race is attracting national players.

There are many of us who will not go away, when it comes to fighting against a form-based code mentality along the Main Street Corridor, in Bloomington/Normal.  (Highway 51-Main Street)

The several town/city/county/university plans in an around Bloomington/Normal and McLean county, which all include the words "form-based code", won't go away either.

To many business and residents along what is termed the Main Street Corridor down Main Street from north Normal to South Bloomington, form-based code is an assault on property rights.  If you want to do your own research and formulate your own unbiased opinion, Google form-based code, New Urbanism and Sustained Development.  When researching, also ask city leaders in Bloomington/Normal, when they speak of one particular plan for Main Street, presented by Farr and Associates from Chicago,  that is termed "A call for investment"; whose investment?  It's not the City of Bloomingto nor the Town of Normal's; they're nearly broke.  The investment for their dream of what Main Street should look like, will come out of  the pockets of the business owners and the taxpayers.

I'm certain the business owners along the Main Street Corridor would like some of the "grant" money that is being given to Normal businesses.  More on this later.

I'm going to talk about the Illinois Gubernatorial candidates and how this race is shaping up, but before I do I want to make a brief comment on last week's Cities 92.9 radio commentary, where I talked about the form-based code. . . again. . . and the vote by the Bloomington City Council on a resolution of their support of the Regional Comprehensive Plan written by the county.  In three different areas of this Regional Plan, was mention of the form-based code.

 When the newly formed Main Street Association, made up of several Bloomington/Normal Main Street business owners, expressed concerns about the form-based code, (many of whom consider it an assault on Main Street property rights),  were told the language was "softened", and basically, no worries.  We were worried, especially since we were told the Bloomington City Council wasn't going to vote on anything related to form-based code last Monday, and then find out two days before the meeting, that a resolution had been added to the agenda, in support of the Regional Comprehensive Plan, which contained "form-based code" in three locations in the plan.

 While yes, due to our continued vocal concerns, language in the Comprehensive Plan had been "softened" in two of the three areas, (we still don't know what "softened"  means; the pig still has lipstick on); however, for those of us who actually read the 168 page plan, on page 123, there were those three little words, form based code.

 There was much discussion by the city council members last Monday, with David Sage, Judy Stearns and Steven Purcell leading the charge to strike that language from the Plan before voting on the resolution.  Public discussion was denied because of a Parliamentary Procedure move by a motion  made by John Hanson to adopt the code as written. Councilman Sage said to Councilman Hanson:  "You mean as is, with the form-based code wording left in on page 123?" Councilman  Hanson's answer:  "Yes".

 The vote was taken.  The vote was 7 to 2 to reject Hanson's motion. The other councilman voting to leave the form-based code in on page 123, was Jim Fruin.  A second motion was then made to adopt the resolution removing the form-based code language from page 123, and it passed unanimously.  Confusing, very confusing.

 Councilmen Hanson and Fruin are taking some heat on that first motion and vote to keep the form-based code language in the resolution, which everyone tells us doesn't mean anything anyway. Which begs the question. . . what?  The council meetings are painfully long; so let's add a resolution to vote on something that doesn't mean anything anyway?

That's a discussion for another day.

Councilman Hanson says that he is a friend to business owners, he's a business owner himself; and his motion and vote were a procedural matter.  He'd like to talk to the Main Street business owners newly formed Association to explain procedure.   We look forward to the understanding of City Council procedure, and certainly give Councilmen Hanson and Fruin the opportunity to explain a procedure that 7 of their fellow councilmen and women disagreed with. 

 On to the Illinois race for Governor.  It's a crowded field, and several were in Bloomington last night at the Lafayette Club, at a forum hosted by the McLean County Freedom Coalition.  What's that coalition? It's a group, made up of other groups, who have formed not necessarily with the Republican or Democrat Parties, but other interested and concerned citizens, the 912 Group, and the Tea Party group are two.

It was a good effort to bring these Gubernatorial candidates to Bloomington; like their first event a month ago, Freedom Night, which brought in over 200 like-minded concerned voters.  Lex and Karen Green, along with many others, organized this  question-answer type of forum, and of the 13 candidates invited; yes, there are currently 13 candidates for Governor, 6 made the effort to attend, including the more recognizeable names of Bill Brady and Dan Proft.

So who is running for Governor?  Perhaps the question should be, who isn't?

For the Democrats, so far declared are current Governor Pat Quinn, and current Comptroller, Dan Hynes.  In a recent poll, Quinn leads by a good margin; but it's certainly early.

 For the Republicans, it's Sen. Bill Brady, Sen. Kirk Dillard, DuPage Co. Board Chairman Bob Schillerstrom, political consultant Dan Proft, former Illinois GOP Chairman Andy McKenna, a wealthy Chicago businessman, Andy Andrejewski, and one still on the fence, but getting closer to announcing, former Attorney General Jim Ryan.  There are also Independent, Constitution and Libertarian Party candidates. I'm sure I've forgotten someone, but I'm running out of breath. 

The same poll gave Bill Brady a slight lead; this poll was taken before former Il Governor Jim Edgar endorsed his former Chief of Staff, Kirk Dillard.

Illinois is a financial disaster.  Neighboring Indiana is taking our businesses and offering jobs in their state, while Illinois fights with Michigan for bottom-place in the jobs and business market.

 Whoever the winner is, and says he won't raise taxes in Illinois to get us out of this mess, is a liar; and they all know whoever says he will raise taxes to get us out of this mess, is a loser.  We and the nation, joke about Illinois politics. 

 It's not so funny anymore.