City for Conquest (1940)

Saw this the other night, thanks to Netflix. Incredible story, a symphony of New York. Starring Jimmy Cagney, Ann Sheridan, Anthony Quinn--and Elia Kazan as "Googie," a mobster with a heart. Directed by Anatole Litvak, photography by James Wong Howe, music by Max Steiner. Incredible--especially for New Yorkers and former New Yorkers... Had no idea that Kazan was such a good actor. No wonder he did great things with Brando and James Dean, among others....You can watch a clip from YouTube here: And you can order the DVD from Amazon.com here: Here's what DVD Savant has to say about it:

City for Conquest is an ambitious James Cagney movie given the full Warner treatment. Although it doesn't quite hit the mark on any of its four or five themes it gives them all a college try; it's become a favorite of Cagney fans. It is a gangster picture, a boxing picture, a "poetic" symphony-of-the-city epic, a starstruck show-biz career picture --- and for a finale it even tries to graft on the end of Charlie Chaplin's City Lights. Until this DVD release, City for Conquest was also a movie with a mysterious missing element -- an entire wrap-around framing story. I'll be scratching my head about that mystery a little further into the review. The bottom line is that City for Conquest is a unique end-of-the-Depression-years thriller with special performances from James Cagney and Ann Sheridan.

Supreme Court to Rule on DC Gun Ban

Someone I know served on a DC jury a couple of weeks ago in a gun case. The accused, a 60-something used car salesman, had been stopped and frisked on the street. The police found a gun. He was arrested, and released on bail. A couple of weeks later, after meeting with his attorney, he remembered that he had been on his way to turn in the gun to a DC police officer. At the trial, a DC police officer testified to this effect. So, the jury declared the defendant "not guilty." DC law permits someone to possess a gun if he intends to turn it in to the police. After acquittal, the prosecutor and defense attorney briefed the jury on the defendant's background--he had prior arrests for attempted murder and other crimes, but no convictions.

My personal verdict: the DC gun law is pointless. More from Tom Knott in the Washington Times today:

The U.S. Supreme Court's justices are making noises that suggest they will restore the Second Amendment rights to residents of the nation's capital, as they should be.

The D.C. Council imposed a handgun ban on its citizenry in 1976, ostensibly to save lives. The measure has not worked out as envisioned, predictably enough.

The nation's capital earned the dubious distinction of being the nation's murder capital in the early '90s, when the violence spiked because of the crack epidemic. The number of murders in the city peaked at 479 in 1991. There were 181 murders in the city last year, with more and more neighborhoods in the city undergoing gentrification and some of the violent crime spilling over into Prince George's County.

This is the demographic reality that no city lawmaker is apt to utter in public. City lawmakers are more apt to blame the murder rate on the easy accessibility of handguns in Maryland and Virginia, a thin argument that ignores the vagaries of the human condition. If a gang member or drug dealer wants a handgun, regardless of the law, you can be certain he can make a quick call to secure one in short order.

Not that the nine justices are inclined to make their ruling based on an interpretation of the murder statistics of the city. Theirs is a higher pursuit of the Constitution, of what the Framers actually intended with the Second Amendment, whether its reference to service in a militia extends to individuals having a right to bear arms.

Quebec: The Next Kosovo?

From the Globe and Mail (Canada):

MONTREAL -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended his government's recognition of an independent Kosovo yesterday even as sovereigntists in Quebec celebrated the move as a precedent-setting boost for their movement.

A day after his government officially recognized the onetime Serbian province, Mr. Harper insisted Kosovo was a "unique" case that had no bearing on Quebec.

"It's a completely different situation from the democratic debate in Canada and Quebec," Mr. Harper told reporters in London, Ont.

He said war and suffering by the Kosovars prompted the international community to intervene and eventually led to a "de facto separate state."

Quebeckers, meanwhile, are tired of debates and referendums on independence, the Prime Minister said. "They want to get on with building a strong Quebec within a strong Canada."

The Parti Québécois has seized on Ottawa's move as evidence Canada was prepared to recognize a newborn state that achieved independence over the objections of the country it left.

In an interview, former PQ premier Bernard Landry said that despite major differences with Quebec, Kosovo illustrates "that the right of nations to independence is a sacred thing."

Happy Navruz!

Info on OrexCA.com:

Navruz (also called Noruz, Nowruz, Nowrooz, and Nawruz), the spring "New Year" holiday, has been celebrated for at least 2,500 years, and perhaps for as long as 5,000 years. Originating in Persia and long associated with the ancient Zoroastrian religion, its name means "new day" in Farsi because for ancient Persians it marked the first day of the New Year. On this day, Persian kings would have worn a crown with images of the annual solar cycle on their heads, participated in the divine mass in the Temple of Fire, and distributed generous gifts to citizens.

Barack Obama's Philadelphia Speech

He calls it "A More Perfect Union"

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars, statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution, finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least 20 more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution -- a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part -- through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk -- to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign -- to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together -- unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction -- towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Ft. Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners -- an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems -- two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over 30 years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, "Dreams From My Father," I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters. . . . And in that single note -- hope! -- I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories -- of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about . . . memories that all people might study and cherish -- and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety -- the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America -- to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like healthcare, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote: "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, 50 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination -- where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments -- meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods -- parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement -- all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it -- those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero-sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk-show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze -- a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns -- this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy -- particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people -- that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances -- for better healthcare, and better schools, and better jobs -- to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for our own lives -- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American -- and yes, conservative -- notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen -- is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope -- the audacity to hope -- for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds -- by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle -- as we did in the OJ trial -- or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have healthcare; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation -- the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today -- a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, 23-year-old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was 9 years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her healthcare. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say healthcare or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give healthcare to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the 221 years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Speaking of Roots...

A friend called to let me know that Barack Obama and Dick Cheney are cousins--as are Barack Obama and George Bush:

The Chicago Sun-Times revealed the genealogical link in early September, claiming that the shared ancestors were Mareen and Susannah Duvall, 17th century immigrants from France.

The newspaper, however, claimed that the senator from Illinois and the vice president were 11th cousins.

The Duvalls are Obama's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, and Cheney's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, the paper said.

George W. Bush and Obama, meanwhile, are 10th cousins once removed - linked through a 17th century Massachusetts couple, Samuel Hinckley and Sarah Soole, according to the Sun-Times.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

On our recent trip to Chicago, a fireman seated at our table for the wedding luncheon told us that, until recentlly, firemen had been chosen by Chicago's Catholic bishops. Which made this article by James Lewis from The American Thinker especially interesting reading. It's titled "Beware the Irish Conspiracy?":

In fact, the biggest hidden influence in American politics is no doubt the Irish Conspiracy. Largely staying in the background of American life, the Irish have penetrated all our institutions, even the Presidency itself. No less than twelve American presidents are believed to have had Irish ancestry. (See Kennedy, Reagan). Irish politicians have been rife at all levels of American government (Tip O'Neill, Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, Ed Rendell).

In many cities entire police and fire departments are stacked with the Irish. The iron fist of paramilitary dominance is exercised every year for all the world to see, as Fifth Avenue in New York City has its center line painted green and the Chicago River is dyed green on St. Patrick's Day, a demonstration of raw power that chills to the bone knowledgeable initiates into the secrets of this cabal. None will ever reveal to the rest of us the dark truths they hide.

They have infiltrated major American religious institutions, like the Catholic Church. The upper ranks of the Church in America are of predominantly Irish descent, and many of the priests accused of sexually abusing altar boys likewise have been of Irish extraction.

Need I say more?

Are the Irish loyal to this country? The question is intriguing, but the answer is not clear. Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., a known Nazi sympathizer prior to World War II, made his money as an organized crime chief, smuggling illegal substances that brought more families to ruin than crack cocaine or heroin. An IRA supporter, Kennedy, Sr. and his Irish friend Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago are widely believed to have stolen the presidential election of 1960 for Kennedy's son Jack.

American IRA sympathizers have long been a mainstay of terrorist support, paying for decades of bombings and shootings against our closest European ally, Britain -- including attempts to assassinate Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major. During World War Two, the IRA secretly plotted with Nazi Germany, and even today, the Irish Republican Army receives funds from hidden sympathizers in Boston and elsewhere...

On the same website, Thomas Lifson notes that Barack Obama and John McCain both share Irish roots:

Alone among the three, Hillary Rodham Clinton does not seem to have any Irish ancestry.

David Horowitz Remember His Daughter Sarah

I used to work for David Horowitz, but never saw this side of him:

Unlike Sarah, who until this election was pretty much a member of the Green Party, I am a Republican. As a result I have a unique insight into Sarah’s last campaign which I want to share with you in concluding this goodbye to my sweet child.

Of course she would be attracted to a leader who had written a book called the Audacity of Hope, and whose slogan was “yes we can;” a leader who reflected in his own biography the multicultural, multiracial mixing that was her own family; and in which she placed hopes for the future of her country and perhaps even the world. And of course she would want to support a man whose message was the coming together of all Americans across racial, political and class lines. And of course her father would be skeptical.

But through our head-butting, and through our contentiousness and because of the patience and persistence with which she maintained her point of view, and as a result of the realism that underpinned it, when she told me she was going to Iowa to campaign for Barack Obama, even though we continued to disagree about politics, I was whole-heartedly behind her.

And because she was Sarah there was no way she was going to ask for help to do what she had determined to do. So she took her meager resources and bought herself a plane ticket. She ignored the hearing problems which made even conversations with family and friends sometimes difficult, and made arrangements over the phone to get herself transported thousands of miles away; arrangements to stay in a state where she knew no one; to find Jews to pray with when the Sabbath came; and to receive her instructions and orders for the campaign. She trudged through airports on her aching, malfunctioning hip; she gritted her teeth and endured the pains of a gastro-intestinal tract ravaged by illness, and she put pressure yet again on a cardio-vascular system damaged and inadequate from birth, and on a body whose wounded state would take her so cruelly from us only two months later.

Undaunted by every discomfort and challenge, she marched into two degree weather, in the depths of a heartland winter, to knock on doors and bring out Americans she had never met to join in her campaign of hope, of yes we can. And you can bet that when she called me from Iowa to relate her progress there was a smile in her voice and not a hint of complaint about the weather or anything else.

And when the results were in and a black man had won a presidential primary in a white state and gathered the momentum to become the first black American to have the prospect of being a presidential nominee and perhaps even a president, she relished his triumph and along with it the fact that it was the first political campaign she had ever participated in – and there were many – in which her cause had won.

And in that moment, I was able to share her triumph, to walk across the bridge that we had built together through the decades of contentiousness and debate. “You can be very proud of what you have done Sarah,” I said to her when it was over. “Even if they steal the nomination from Obama; even if he wins the nomination and loses the presidency; even if he wins the presidency and fails to deliver on his promises and disappoints you, it doesn’t matter. It is already done. America has already been changed forever by this Iowa campaign. And this could not have happened without you and others like you. And what I did not say to her because she would not have wanted me to draw attention to it and would not have wanted to hear it, was that of all the people who came to Iowa to campaign for Barack Obama, none had done so having to overcome more obstacles to get there or carry it through than Sarah.

Jonas Gerard Live Painting on YouTube

DNI McConnell Defends "Waterboarding" at Johns Hopkins

I was in the audience yesterday for a speech by the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Michael McConnell to the Foreign Affairs Symposium at Johns Hopkins University. I couldn't believe my ears when I thought I heard him defend "Waterboarding." So I checked the official transcript. Here's what he had to say in answer to a question from Dr. Steven R. David, Vice-Dean for Centers and Programs and Professor of Political Science:

DR. DAVID: Let me talk about torture. Is waterboarding a form of torture? Is it an effective means of extracting information? If it is a form of torture or if it is not an effective means of extracting information, why will not the Intelligence Community, the CIA foreswear its use?

DIRECTOR McCONNELL: Let’s take it from the beginning. Has waterboarding ever been used by a professional organization whose mission is to extract information? The answer is yes.

You might ask what are the circumstances? Three times. Situations where there’s been interrogation over a period of time. It was unsuccessful. Water boarding was used and then information started to flow.

Just to put it in context, probably upwards of a quarter to a third of all the information generated in this period of time came from these three individuals. It’s saved lives.

I would be willing to say it’s saved lives for some of the people who know, of people who are known to people in this room. So you’ve got to ask yourself the question, is it worth it?

Now here’s the problem for America. We have a political system that will define the bounds. This community, will always operate inside those bounds. Now what the image, particularly across the country, the image is Abu Ghraib. It was an abhorrent situation where some youngsters got out of control and did some terrible things, made photographs, and they are
suffering the penalty or the punishment for having done that. That’s what people think about when they say torture.

We went through along debate about how to do this consistent with the Geneva Convention and so on. Laws were passed. And we agreed upon an Army Field Manual for how interrogations will be conducted by the U.S. military. That in fact is where we are.

Now think of the Army Field Manual is about like this. Think of the law is about like that. So the question is, if it’s legal within the law, do you want to keep those techniques available in a situation where it might save lives, particularly if it were weapons of mass destruction?

Now add one other thing. Those three interrogations with waterboarding were hardened criminals. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Go to the web site, look up KSM, read about him. It was his intent to repeat 9/11 many times over and he would not speak with us. Also in the timeframe, this happened in 2002, might have gone to 2003, I just don’t remember, but 2002 timeframe. We didn’t know much about al-Qaida. This was a period of time when we just did not have information, understanding and so on. Have we used it since that time? No. The President gave us a list of techniques. Is it in that list of techniques? No. If we needed to use it, what would happen? We would have to ask, first the Agency would have to ask me, I’d have to agree or disagree. Then it would have to go to the Attorney General. The Attorney General would have to make a ruling, legal or not. Then we’d have to go to the President and get permission. Once that happened, you have to go notify the Congress.

So the way I think about it is we will abide by the laws of the nation. The laws right now are this size. The Army Field Manual is this size. So do we want to take all those options away and move them down to something smaller? That’s a decision for the nation. If the nation does it, we will comply. If the nation leaves that larger body of techniques open, then we’ll use every technique available to us given it would prevent a horrendous attack on the United States.

DR. DAVID: Again, just to clarify, if you felt the situation warranted it, you would us waterboarding, and you do believe in certain situations it’s effective and the only way of extracting information.

DIRECTOR McCONNELL: Were you listening?

DR. DAVID: Yeah, I listened to every word.

DIRECTOR McCONNELL: Well, I said it’s not in our list of techniques. If we decided we needed it we would go through a procedure to get permission and we would go notify the Congress.

So if it’s not illegal and it would prevent an attack on a city that would save hundreds, thousands of lives, would we use it? I would certainly be persuaded in that direction, given that the Attorney General verified it’s a legal technique.

Does it work? Yes, it works.

Client Number 6--The Duke of Westminster?

According to The Sun (UK) (ht Huffington Post), Emperor's Club VIP Client Number Six is allegedly the Duke of Westminster:

THE mega-rich Duke of Westminster allegedly used the same escort agency as Eliot Spitzer to arrange romps with tarts.

Lithuanian Zana Brazdek said he paid her £2,000 after booking her by email through the London office of Emperors Club VIP.

She was told what to wear for the two-hour visit to his posh pad in central London.

The aristocrat – Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, 56 – is one of Britain’s wealthiest men.

Maggie Gallagher: Leave Silda Spitzer Out Of It...

Maggie Gallagher's column about Elliot Spitzer's exploiting his wife ran in yesterday's New York Post:

But can we at least end this barbaric practice of dragging your wife before the cameras while you confess your shameful guilt? If she wasn't there in the hotel room when you did your crime, don't ask her to do your time.

The practice began relatively innocently as something an accused man might do when he denied the allegations . A man's wife at his side showed that she, at least, believed the guy when he said he did not do it.

It was former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, I believe, who began the modern practice (Can we ban it along with waterboarding?) of parading the little wife before the cameras to hold your hand as you confess your guilt. The goal is to get the shell-shocked wife to demonstrate to the public that the offense is forgiveable. If his wife forgives him, how mad can you be?

But the practice requires a man to turn the best instinct of his wife -- to unite behind the family in crisis -- into an instrument of her own public humiliation.

And another thing: Can we end the public practice of trying to shame these wives into divorcing their husbands?

There's a reason we feel impelled to do this these days. Adultery has been redefined as a "private matter," as Spitzer put it in his vain, Clintonian attempt to redirect attention from his crimes to his sin. Because we no longer have any public punishments for adultery, we have turned wives into instruments of the public morality: If she doesn't punish him by divorcing him, he will go unpunished, which is intolerable. (Without some punishment, won't all husbands stray?)

I'm tired of this transference of the sins of the husband onto the wife. Leave the wives alone. Let's forget about standing by the man, but can't we at least agree to stand by the woman?

Look, I'm not a moron. I understand that men will use prostitutes for their own purposes without caring what happens to them, but can't we expect a little higher standard of behavior from an outrageously guilty husband toward the wife he has just embarrassed and betrayed?

Eliot, you are famously one big, tough dude from the Bronx. An "f-ing steamroller." Can't you go out in front of the cameras and face it like a man?

Spitzer Resigns--Hillary Loses Superdelegate...

The Huffington Post notes that not only was Elliot Spitzer New York's Governor, he was a Democratic Convention Superdelegate...

Should Spitzer resign he would lose his superdelegate status. Spitzer is in Clinton's corner on our endorsement list.

Did Governor Spitzer Violate the Mann Act?

I heard a lot about this law in movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood. So, thanks to google, I found this post on Wikipedia. Here's an item from NPR. And this is from the Wall Street Journal. The question remains: Did the New York Governor and former Attorney General commit a federal crime?

Here are some excerpts from the federal code from Prof. Mark Tunick's FAU website. We report, you decide:

18 USCS @ 2421 (1994) @ 2421.
*** THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH P.L. 103-321, APPROVED
8/26/94 ***
TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I. CRIMES
CHAPTER 117. TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND
RELATED CRIMES @ 2421.

Transportation generally
Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or
foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United
States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution,
or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged
with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both
HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES PRIOR LAW AND REVISION:

1948 Act
This section is based on Act June 25, 1910, ch 395, @@ 1, 2,
5, 8, 36 Stat. 825--827 (former 18 U.S.C. @@ 397, 398, 401, and
404).

AMENDMENTS: 1949. Act May 24, 1949, substituted "induce" for
"induct" in the second paragraph.
1986. Act Nov. 7, 1986, substituted this section for one
which read: "Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or
foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia or in any
Territory or Possession of the United States, any woman or girl
for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other
any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery,
or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent and purpose
to induce, entice, or compel such woman or girl to become a
prostitute or to give herself up to debauchery, or to engage in
any other immoral practice; or "Whoever knowingly procures or
obtains any ticket or tickets, or any form of transportation or
evidence of the right thereto, to be used by any woman or girl
in interstate or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia
or any Territory or Possession of the United States, in going to
any place for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for
any other immoral purpose, or with the intent or purpose on the
part of such person to induce, entice, or compel her to give
herself up to the practice of prostitution, or to give herself up
todebauchery, or any other immoral practice, whereby any such
woman or girl shall be transported in interstate or foreign
commerce, or in the District of Columbia or any Territory or
Possession of the United States-- "Shall be fined not more
than $ 5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.".

I. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
Congress had power over transportation among states; that
power was complete in itself; and Congress, as incident to it,
could adopt not only means necessary but convenient to its
exercise, and means could have quality of public regulation such
as predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421. Hoke v United States (1913)
227 US 308, 57 L Ed 523, 33 S Ct 281.
2. Constitutionality, generally White Slave Traffic Act (18
USCS @ 2421) was valid because it was intended to prevent use of
interstate commerce to facilitate prostitution or concubinage,
or other forms of immorality. Hoke v United States (1913) 227 US
308, 57 L Ed 513, 33 S Ct 281; Wilson v United States (1914) 232
US 563, 58 L Ed 728, 34 S Ct 347; 33 S Ct 281; Wilson v United
States (1914) 232 US 563, 58 L Ed 728, 34 S Ct 347; Caminetti v
United States (1917) 242 US 470, 61 L Ed 442, 37 S Ct 192.
3. -Equal protection 18 USCS @ 2421 could be violated by
males or females, was thus sexuallyneutral and did not raise
questions of illegal classification. United States v Garrett
(1975, CA8 Mo) 521 F2d 444; United States v Green (1977, CA9
Wash) 554 F2d 372.
4. -Police power of states Fact that regulation of marriage
was state matter did not make predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421
unconstitutional interference by Congress with police powers of
states. Cleveland v United States (1946) 329 US 14, 91 L Ed 12,
67 S Ct 13, reh den (1946) 329 US 830, 91 L Ed 704, 67 S Ct 361.
reh den (1946) 329 US 830, 91 L Ed 704, 67 S Ct 361.
Predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 was not unconstitutional as
unwarranted attempt on part of Congress to exercise police
powers. United States v Westman (1910, DC Or) 182 F 1017; United
States v Warner (1911, CC NY) 188 F 682.
5. -Standing Defendant who was charged with conspiracy to
knowingly transport women in interstate commerce for purposes of
prostitution in violation of 18 USCS @ 2421 could not challenge
constitutionality of @ 2421 on grounds that since prostitution is
legal in parts of Nevada, that @ 2421, therefore, violates and
derogates rights of females to seek legal employment was
constrained by @ 2421, and he consequently lacked standing to
attack statute on this basis. United States v Pelton (1978, CA8
Mo) 578 F2d 701, 4 Fed Rules Evid Serv 334, cert den (1978) 439
US 964, 58 L Ed 2d 422, 99 S Ct 451. Defendant charged with
violation of Mann Act did not have standing to challenge
constitutionality of 18 USCS @ 2421 on grounds that statute
denied protection by protecting only female victims of
prostitution, since he was not victim. United States v Bankston
(1979, CA5 Tex) 603 F2d 528, 4 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1515.
6. Purpose In enacting predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421,
Congress was seeking to help states to stamp out degradation and
debauchery of women by punishing those who engage in using them
for prostitution. Bell v United States (1955) 349 US 81, 99 L Ed
905, 75 S Ct 620. Purpose of predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 is
to reach and punish movement in interstate transportation of
women and girls with view to accomplishment of unlawful purposes
prohibited. Hunter v United States (1930, CA4 W Va) 45 F2d 55,
73 ALR 870. unlawful purposes prohibited. Hunter v United States
(1930, CA4 W Va) 45 F2d 55, 73 ALR 870. Primary purpose of
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 was to deal with so-called
commercial type of case of transportation of females for immoral
purposes although statute includes within its scope so-called
noncommercial cases. United States v Jamerson (1944, DC Iowa) 60
F Supp 281.
7. Applicability of statute, generally Predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421 covered acts which might ultimately lead to sexual
relations. Athanasaw v United States (1913) 227 US 326, 57 L Ed
528, 33 S Ct 285.
There is no congressional intent to limit application of 18
USCS @ 2421 to only those cases involving commercial vice.
Caminetti v United States (1917) 242 US 470, 61 L Ed 442, 37 S Ct
192; Long v United States (1947, CA10 Okla) 160 F2d 706; De
Vault v United States (1964, CA10 Kan) 338 F2d 179.
While predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 was primarily aimed at use
of interstate commerce for purposes of commercialized sex, it was
not restricted to that end. Cleveland v United States (1946) 329
US 14, 91 L Ed 12, 67 S Ct 13, reh den (1946) 329 US 830, 91 L Ed
704, 67 S Ct 361.
18 USCS @ 2421's protection is not confined to unmarried
women and its punishment is not intended to be limited to
unmarried men. Denning v United States (1918, CA5 Tex) 247 F
463.
Predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 applied to voluntary
prostitution. Crespo vUnited States (1945, CA1 Puerto Rico) 151
F2d 44, cert dismd (1946) 327 US 758, 90 L Ed 991, 66 S Ct
520.United States (1945, CA1 Puerto Rico) 151 F2d 44, cert dismd
(1946) 327 US 758, 90 L Ed 991, 66 S Ct 520.
8. -Territorial applicability Predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421
was applicable to transportation taking place wholly within
District of Columbia, notwithstanding local laws for
districtconcerning prostitution. United States v Beach (1945)
324 US 193, 89 L Ed 865, 65 S Ct 602.
Predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 applied to Territory of Hawaii
although not specifically mentioned. Sun Chong Lee v United
States (1942, CA9 Hawaii) 125 F2d 95. Predecessor to 18 USCS @
2421 applied to transportation wholly within Puerto Rico.
Crespo v United States (1945, CA1 Puerto Rico) 151 F2d 44, cert
dismd (1946) 327 US 758, 90 L Ed 991, 66 S Ct 520.
9. Violations as single or separate offenses, generally
Indictment charging defendant with violation of predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2422 and with violation of predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421
charged two separate offenses because engaging in practice of
debauchery and illicit sexual relations was different offense
than to go for purpose of debauchery and immoral purpose since to
engage in practice of debauchery and illicit sexual relations
would seem to indicate continued course of illicit sexual
relations, such as living with woman in state of concubinage.
Gillette v United States (1916, CA8 ND) 236 F 215.




II. ELEMENTS OF CRIME A. In General
12. Generally Immoral conduct and relations of parties were
not elements of offense under predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421.
Neff v United States (1939, CA8 Iowa) 105 F2d 688. By terms of
18 USCS @ 2421 two indispensable ingredients to valid conviction
under statute are: (1) transportation in interstate commerce (2)
transportation for prohibited purpose. Stewart v United States
(1962, CA9 Wash) 311 F2d 109; United States v McConney (1964, CA2
NY) 329 F2d 467; United States v Dimsdale (1969, CA5 Fla) 410 F2d
358.
13. Pecuniary gain
There was no condition in predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 that
furnisher of transportation was to be guiltless unless he shared
in or somehow profited by hire of woman's body. Johnson v United
States (1914, CA7 Ill) 215 F 679. Pecuniary gain as motive for
transportation is not essential element of offense under Mann
Act (18 USCS @ 2421). Whitt v United States (1959, CA6 Ky) 261
F2d 907.
In prosecution for violation of 18 USCS @@ 2421 and 2422, merely
because evidence failed to show what, if any, share of proceeds
were given by defendant to other defendant would not prevent
conviction. United States v Sorrentino (1948, DC Pa) 78 F Supp
425, affd (1949, CA3 Pa) 175 F2d 721, cert den (1949) 338 US 868,
94 L Ed 532, 70 S Ct 143, reh den (1949) 338 US 896, 94 L Ed 551,
70 S Ct 238.
14. Knowledge or consent of individual transported It was not
necessary that woman should have known purpose held in view by
accused at time of her transportation to sustain conviction under
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421. Prdjun v United States (1916,
CA6 Mich) 237 F 799; Qualls v United States (1945, CA5 Ga) 149
F2d 891. It was not necessary to prove immoral purpose on part
of girl transported to find violation of predecessor to 18 USCS
@ 2421. Hart v United States (1926, CA9 Or) 11 F2d 499, cert den
(1926) 273 US 694, 71 L Ed 844, 47 S Ct 92. Fact that woman
furnished automobile and money to make interstate transportation
did not bar jury from finding that defendant transported her in
violation of 18 USCS @ 2421. Brown v United States (1963, CA9
Wash) 314 F2d 293.
B. Transportation
15. Generally Offense denounced by predecessor to 18 USCS @
2421 as procuring of interstate transportation of women or girls
for purpose of prostitution, is complete when any such woman or
girl shall have been transported in such commerce as result of
any of criminal acts. Wilson v United States (1914) 232 US 563,
58 L Ed 728, 34 S Ct 347.
16. Procuring transportation Defendants charged with causing
and procuring interstate transportation of girls for purpose of
prostitution, contrary to predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421, cannot
escape conviction because they did not control or instruct in
choice of means of conveyance, agent employed by them to effect
transportation, and furnished by them with money to cover
transportation expense. Wilson v United States (1914) 232 US
563, 58 L Ed 728, 34 S Ct 347. Procuring of interstate
transportation for girl to place where she could go and await
confinement was not violation of predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421.
Van Pelt v United States (1917, CA4 Va) 240 F 346. It is not
offense under 18 USCS @ 2421 to counsel, command, or induce woman
to transport herself and therefore, where there was no evidence
that defendant in any way participated in interstate
transportation of victim, conviction would be reversed despite
fact that defendant participated in separate intrastate
transportation of victim. Twitchell v United States (1964, CA9
Wash) 330 F2d 759, reh den (1964) 376 US 946, 11 L Ed 2d 770, 84
S Ct 799 and cert den (1964) 376 US 916, 11 L Ed 2d 612, 84 S Ct
670.
17. Providing transportation Furnishing money to accomplice
with which to pay transportation of girls in interstate commerce
to become inmates of house of prostitution, and with which money
such transportation was furnished, was violation of predecessor
to 18 USCS @ 2421; but furnishing of cab fare for such girls
from railroad station in destination town to house of
prostitution in such town did not constitute violation; such
transportation being intrastate. Hietler v United States (1917,
CA7 Ill) 244 F 140.
It was sufficient in prosecution for violation of predecessor
to 18 USCS @ 2421 if transportation was by automobile operated
and controlled by accused. Gowling v United States (1920, CA9
Cal) 269 F 215.
Defendant violated predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 where he
furnished money for ticket and expenses for himself and woman in
interstate journey for purpose of having illicit relations.
Tobias v United States (1924, CA9 Or) 2 F2d 361, cert den (1925)
267 US 593, 69 L Ed 804, 45 S Ct 229. cert den (1925) 267 US 593,
69 L Ed 804, 45 S Ct 229.
Defendant could be guilty of transportation violative of
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 without being personally present
and accompanying female. Gillenwaters v Biddle (1927, CA8 Kan) 18
F2d 206.
It was not necessary that defendant actually transported
woman himself or that he procured tickets, but it was sufficient
if defendant caused to betransported or aided or assisted in
obtaining transportation in violation of 18 USCS @ 2421. Wagner
v United States (1948, CA5 Ala) 171 F2d 354, cert den (1949) 337
US 944, 93 L Ed 1747, 69 S Ct 1499.
Known brothel operator who gave woman, who had previously
engaged in prostitution at his solicitation, money to travel from
Arizona to California andarranged for her to ride in automobile
driven by another prostitute in order to get to brothel in
California to ply her trade, was guilty of causing woman to be
transported in interstate commerce in violation of 18 USCS @
2421. Ege v United States (1957, CA9 Cal) 242 F2d 879.
Defendant could be found to have procured interstate
transportation of woman for immoral purposes in violation of 18
USCS @ 2421 where jury could properly find that loan made by
defendant to woman was connected to her presence veryearly next
morning in another state. Lattanzio v United States (1957, CA9
Cal) 243 F2d 801.
18. Inducing transportation Evidence that defendant
knowingly induced and procured interstate transportation of girl
by definite promises and enticements, and who gave assurance of
place and means to practice prostitution and did it for profit
she got out of it was sufficient to sustain conviction under
predecessor of 18 USCS @ 2421, although actual transportation
was made by another. Schrader v United States (1938, CA8 Mo) 94
F2d 926.
Where woman made interstate journey to defendant's house of
prostitution at her own expense because of defendant's request by
telephone that she return, and there was no evidence that
defendant gave any aid or assistance in obtaining transportation,
defendant was not guilty of causing unlawful transportation in
violation of 18 USCS @ 2421 although she might have been guilty
of inducing such transportation in violation of 18 USCS @ 2422.
Le Page v United States (1945, CA8 Minn) 146 F2d 536, 156 ALR
965.
Act of furnishing money which is used for interstate trip
allegedly in violation of 18 USCS @ 2421 and in accordance with
plan of one who furnishes money goes beyond mere persuading and
inducing and constitutes offense within purview of statute.
Williams v United States (1959, CA4 NC) 271 F2d 703.
Mere inducement to travel for purpose of prostitution when
prostitute is likely to and does get transportation for herself
does not violate 18 USCS @ 2421. Graham v United States (1946)
81 App DC 49, 154 F2d 325. 18 USCS @ 2421 does not extend to
cases of mere inducement, since if it did so, 18 USCS @ 2422
would be redundant. United States v Jones (1990, App DC) 909
F2d 533.
19. Manner or means of transportation In order to constitute
offense under predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421, it was not essential
that transportation was by common carrier. Wilson v United
States (1914) 232 US 563, 58 L Ed 728, 34 S Ct 347; Holden v
United States (1928, CA9 Ariz) 23 F2d 678...
Defendant was guilty of violating 18 USCS @ 2421 regardless of
fact that he and prosecuting witness were in separate automobiles
when crossing border into Alaska from United States. Bennett v
United States (1956, CA9 Alaska) 234 F2d 675.

C. Interstate or Foreign Commerce
... Where dominant purpose of transporting girls in automobile
across bridge through which state line passed was to transport
girls from one state into another for immoral purposes, fact that
when car approached state line girls got out and walked across
line and then got back in car for rest of trip did not have
effect of splitting trip into segments, so as to bar prosecution.
United States v Jamerson (1944, DC Iowa) 60 F Supp 281.
Where attempted transportation of girl from one state into
another for immoral purposes in violation of predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421 was suppressed by girl and police officers before
transportation reached state line, transportation was not
interstate but was intrastate. State v Reed (1917) 53 Mont 292,
163para. 477.
21. District of Columbia Transportation of woman between
points within District of Columbia with intent or purpose to
induce or entice her to practice prostitution violatesFederal
White Slave Traffic Act (predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421). United
States v Beach (1945) 324 US 193, 89 L Ed 865, 65 S Ct 602.
... 24. -Particular circumstances Evidence showing
defendant practiced illicit sexual relations with woman withwhom
he traveled interstate, and who periodically entered house of
prostitution to supply them with funds, was sufficient to
sustain conviction under predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421. Hoffman
v United States (1937, CA9 Cal) 87 F2d 410. Defendant violated
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 when she took her niece from Texas
to Arkansas, placed niece in house of prostitution run by
defendant, received fixed percentage of niece's earnings and
charged her with fixed room rental. Grayson v United States
(1939, CA8 Ark) 107 F2d 367. While defendant could not be
convicted upon mere ground that she operated house of
prostitution to which apparently women were accustomed to come
from other states, she was not entitled to acquittal of charge
under predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 where women she urged to come
from point in another state were also prostitutes subject to
orders of her codefendants. McGuire v United States (1945, CA8
Minn) 152 F2d 577. Where there was evidence that defendant's
wife was prostitute and he knew it,that she was practicing
prostitution in Peoria, Illinois, before he brought her to
Evansville, Indiana, for purpose of engaging in same work, which
she didwithin 48 hours after their arrival, it was sufficient to
sustain conviction of violation of predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421.
United States v Fleenor (1947, CA7 Ind) 162 F2d 935. Evidence
that witness worked as prostitute for defendant, that he beat her
and she left him, that they thereafter went to Mexico for purpose
of getting married and were married while there, that upon their
return defendant put witness back to work for him, warranted
conclusion by jury that interstate journey and marriage was
nothing but device to violate 18 USCS @ 2421. Langfordv United
States (1949, CA9 Cal) 178 F2d 48, cert den (1950) 339 US 938, 94
L Ed 1355, 70 S Ct 669. Where defendant took two girls from
Galveston, Texas, where they engaged in prostitution at
defendant's house, to Louisiana to attend to some legal matters
and thereafter returned to Galveston defendant was not liable
under 18 USCS @ 2421 since there was no intention to engage in
prostitution in Louisiana. Smart v United States (1953, CA5 Tex)
202 F2d 874.
Evidence was sufficient to support conviction under 18 USCS @
2421 where defendant took victim into his home, admittedly had
intercourse with her, and then suggested that they were going to
another state to place her in house of prostitution since from
these acts it is reasonable to infer that he intended to entice
her to give herself up to debauchery at time of interstate
transportation. United States v Marks (1959, CA7 Ind) 274 F2d

26. -Debauchery Term "debauchery" as used in predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421 is not limited to being synonym for "seduce," but
includes also exposing of woman to such influences as will
naturally and inevitably so corrupt her mind and character as to
lead her to act of sexual immorality, or leading of already
sexually corrupt woman to engage or continue more or less
habitually in sexually immoral practices. Van Pelt v United
States (1917, CA4 Va) 240 F 346. "Debauchery" as used in
White Slave Traffic Act (predecessor to 18 USCS @2421) is not
limited to initial successful assault upon girl's virtue or to
her more or less enjoying persistence in state of adultery or
concubinage. United States v Mellor (1946, DC Neb) 71 F Supp
53, affd (1947, CA8 Neb) 160 F2d 757, cert den (1947) 331 US 848,
91 L Ed 1858, 67 S Ct 1734.
27. -Lewd dancing or other public exhibitions Predecessor
to 18 USCS @ 2421 was violated by transportation of woman in
interstate commerce for purpose of becoming accused's mistress,
and it was notessential that there was any intention that gain
was to be derived from woman's transportation. Caminetti v
United States (1917) 242 US 470, 61 L Ed 442, 37 S Ct 192.
Employment of young girls in Indiana, and their
transportation to Illinois, to take part in public exhibitions
which defendants furnished as part of entertainment features of
traveling carnival was violation of White Slave Traffic Act
[predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 et seq.] if employment and
influenceswith which defendants surrounded girls tended to induce
them to give themselves up to condition of debauchery which
eventually and naturally would lead to course of immorality
sexually. United States v Lewis (1940, CA7 Ind) 110 F2d 460,
cert den (1940) 310 US 634.

28. -Polygamous marriage Members of Mormon sect who
practiced polygamy and each of whom transported atleast one
plural wife across state lines, either for purpose of cohabiting
with her, or for purpose of aiding another member of cult in
such project could be held guilty of violating predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421. Cleveland v United States (1946) 329 US 14, 91 L Ed
12, 67 S Ct 13, reh den (1946) 329 US 830, 91 L Ed 704, 67 S Ct
361; Malaga v United States (1932, CA1 Mass) 57 F2d 822.
Enticement of girl into another state to contract bigamous
marriage and after such marriage persuading her to live with
defendant in immoral way was no offense under predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421. Gerbino v United States (1923, CA3 NJ) 293 F 754.
Conviction under White Slave Traffic Act (predecessor to 18 USCS
@ 2421) will be upheld where it was shown that defendant, while
"married" to two other women, transported girl from District of
Columbia into Virginia, where they were bigamously married, and
then transported her from Virginia back to District of Columbia,
where they had sexual relations. Burgess v United States (1924)
54 App DC 71, 294 F 1002.

29. -Rape Transportation by defendant of woman across state
line with purpose of raping her violated 18 USCS @ 2421 since
statute covers interstate transportation of woman without
pecuniary motive where intent is to have illicit relations with
her by force or otherwise. Poindexter v United States (1943, CA8
Ark) 139 F2d 158; Brown v United States (1956, CA8 Mo) 237 F2d
281; Wegman v United States (1959, CA8 Mo) 272 F2d 31.

Transportation of girl as secretary was not offense under
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 unless there was present purpose to
have sexual intercourse with her. Ghadiali v United States
(1927, CA9 Or) 17 F2d 236, cert den (1927) 274 US 747, 71 L Ed
1328, 47 S Ct 660. Proof that defendant took woman not his
wife, in automobile to another state and lived with her in
hotel, registered as husband and wife, with other evidence of
intent, supported conviction under predecessor of 18 USCS @ 2421.
Rockwell v United States (1940, CA9 Cal) 111 F2d 452.
Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for violation
of 18 USCS @ 2421 where defendant and woman were living together
in New York and went to Washington and continued to hold
themselves out and act as husband and wife. United States v Pape
(1944, CA2 NY) 144 F2d 778, cert den (1944) 323 US 752, 89 L Ed
602, 65 S Ct 86.

Sexual intercourse after interstate transit for purpose other
than suchintercourse was not offense under 18 USCS @ 2421.
United States v Grace (1934, CA2 NY) 73 F2d 294. If sole
purpose of trip was legitimate, purely incidental intent to have
illicit relations was not federal offense under predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421.Yoder v United States (1935, CA10 Okla) 80 F2d 665;
United States v Pape (1944, CA2 NY) 144 F2d 778, cert den (1944)
323 US 752, 89 L Ed 602, 65 S Ct 86; United CA2 NY) 144 F2d 778,
cert den (1944) 323 US 752, 89 L Ed 602, 65 S Ct 86; United
States v Jamerson (1944, DC Iowa) 60 F Supp 281.
III. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER CRIMES
... 38. State criminal laws, generally Local laws of
District of Columbia, which make it criminal offense for
"anyprostitute" to invite or persuade any person to go with her
to any building for purpose of prostitution, or for any person
to entice or force any woman to go to house of assignation, or
for any person to invite, induce, or procure another to engage
in prostitution or to go to any place for purposes of
prostitution, do not operate to except from Federal White Slave
Traffic Act (predecessor to 18 USCS @@ 2421 et seq)
transportation of woman for immoral purposes, wholly
withinDistrict of Columbia. United States v Beach (1945) 324 US
193, 89 L Ed 865, 65 S Ct 602.
Fact that offense proved may contain elements of graver crime,
cognizable by state law, does not affect prosecution under
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421. Yeates v United States (1918, CA5
Ga) 254 F 60, cert den (1919) 248 US 583, 63 L Ed 432, 39 S Ct
136.
While states alone can penalize practice of prostitution,
debauchery, orother immoral conduct within their respective
borders, Congress has power under Constitution to forbid such
immoral practices and conduct through channels of interstate
commerce. Cleveland v United States (1945, CA10 Utah) 146 F2d
730, affd (1946) 329 US 14, 91 L Ed 12, 67 S Ct 13, reh den
(1946) 329 US 830, 91 L Ed 704, 67 S Ct 361 and revd on other
grounds (1946) Chatwin v United States 326 US 455, 90 L Ed 198,
66 S Ct 233.

39. -Effect of federal prosecution upon subsequent state
prosecution Fact that woman was arrested and charged with
violation of local ordinance regarding immorality did not
preclude prosecution under 18 USCS @ 2421 on on double jeopardy
ground since different evidence would be necessary to sustain two
offenses. United States v Tyler (1972, CA10 Wyo) 459 F2d 647,
cert den (1972) 409 US 951, 34 L Ed 2d 223, 93 S Ct 297.
40. -Conflict with federal law State statute making it
unlawful to transport woman into, through, or across state, for
purposes of prostitution, was proper exercise of state police
powerand not interference with interstate commerce. Sisemore v
State (1918) 135 Ark 179, 204 SW 626.
... 87. -Wife as victim In prosecution under 18 USCS @ 2421,
victim of offense may be compelled, over her objection and that
of defendant, to testify on behalf of prosecution,
notwithstanding fact that defendant and victim were, at time of
prosecution, married, and marriage took place after commission of
offense. Wyatt v United States (1960) 362 US 525, 4 L Ed 2d 931,
80 S Ct 901.
Husband's privilege as criminal defendant to prevent his wife
from testifying against him is inapplicable in prosecutions for
prostituting his wife, in violation of White Slave Traffic Act
(18 USCS @ 2421), since such crimeconstituted "shameless offense
against wifehood." United States v Massey (1965) 15 USCMA 274,
35 CMR 246.


18 USCS @ 2422 (1994) @ 2422. Coercion and enticement
Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any
individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any
Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in
prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can
be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under the
this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

18 USCS @ 2422 (1994) @ 2422. Coercion or enticement of female
"Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any
woman or girl to go from one place to another in interstate or
foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia or in any
Territory or Possession of the United States, for the purpose of
prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or
with the intent and purpose on the part of such person that such
woman or girl shall engage in the practice of prostitution or
debauchery, or any other immoral practice, whether with or
without her consent, and thereby knowingly causes such woman or
girl to go and to be carried or transported as a passenger upon
the line or route of any common carrier or carriers in interstate
or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia or in any
Territory or Possession of the United States, shall be fined not
more than $ 5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or
both.". 1988. Act Nov. 18, 1988 substituted "or foreign
commerce" for "of foreign commerce".

Dick Morris: Obama Must Attack Hillary Clinton

From DickMorris.com:

Clintons are trying to steal the nomination from Barack Obama - and he can’t let them.

The Clintons’ campaign attacks put Obama in a bind.

If he doesn’t answer in kind, he’s toast.

Danish Cartoonist: Holland Must Show Wilders' Film

Reuters reports:

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The Danish cartoonist behind controversial images of the Prophet Mohammad has urged a Dutch right-wing politician to broadcast a film expected to be critical of the Koran despite fears it might spark violence.

Kurt Westergaard is the author of a series of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed including one showing him with a bomb as a turban which triggered riots in the Muslim world and a boycott of Danish products when they were published in 2006.

Fearing a similar backlash against the Netherlands, the Dutch government has urged politician Geert Wilders not to broadcast a film he has made about the Koran, distancing itself from his views and considering a possible ban.

Westergaard told the Dutch Volkskrant daily on Monday no Danish politician would dare to suggest blocking the film.

"That would mean political suicide. A Danish politician knows that you should not limit freedom of expression. Wilders must just show his film," he said in an interview.

Wilders has given few details about his film, but he has called the Koran a "fascist" book that incites violence. Nobody except Wilders and his producers have actually seen the film

Christopher Hitchens, call your office...

Brent Bozell: What McCain Must Do For Conservatives

The late William F. Buckley's nephew, L. Brent Bozell, lays out a roadmap for the McCain campaign's relationship with conservatives, in today's Washington Post:

This is what conservatives call on him to do:

McCain must present a strategy to defeat the threat of radical Islam. He needs to call on the United States to rebuild its military infrastructure, so devastated by the Clinton administration. He should secure our borders by a date certain. In every great struggle, the citizenry -- everyone, not just the country's military -- has been challenged to participate. McCain could make this the clarion call for volunteerism, for national service.

If McCain believes in freedom, he should promise to take the yoke off the American taxpayer. He has embraced making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Good. Now he should pledge to end the estate tax and lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. In fact, he should call for an overhaul of the tax system. The flat tax or the fair tax -- either is preferable to the monstrosity that is the Internal Revenue Service.

The federal government is out of control. Conservatives don't want to hear talk about "reining in the growth of government." Those are empty words. McCain needs to call for the elimination of entire sectors of the federal leviathan. He should pledge to turn back to the states that which is their responsibility and which comes under their authority. We want to see how he will deregulate the private sector and how he will once again unleash the economic might of the United States. He should champion private retirement accounts and health savings accounts.

McCain should place the left on notice -- now -- that if elected, he will not tolerate congressional obstructionism of his nominations to the federal judiciary.

Our culture is decaying from within, and most Republicans have been shamefully AWOL on this issue. McCain could begin a national conversation about parents, not the state, taking responsibility for their children and their communities. He should call on the entertainment industry to stop polluting America's youth with its videos and its music and on the Internet. We wait to hear him call for the United States to honor the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and family, and to return God to the public square.

If McCain offers this kind of vision, Washington elitists will scoff. But he should remember that they also scoffed and dismissed Ronald Reagan, all the way to his election. And his reelection.

Sydney Morning Herald: Palestinians Celebrate Jerusalem Yeshiva Massacre

Griff Witte writes in the Sydney Morning Herald about reactions to the recent mass killings:

ANGUISH in Jerusalem. Celebration in Gaza and among Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. These images - both in reaction to the gun massacre of eight Jewish students in Jerusalem - tell the story of shattered hope.

It was the deadliest attack in Israel in nearly two years, and the Islamic movement Hamas praised it as "heroic" and a "natural response to Israeli crimes in Gaza", but stopped short of claiming responsibility.

Police said Alaa Abu Dheim, a Palestinian resident of East Jerusalem who was once a driver for the seminary, had slipped inside with an AK-47 assault rifle and a pistol hidden in a box and started shooting.

In Hamas-ruled Gaza, thousands of Palestinians poured on to streets to celebrate, firing shots in the air. A loudspeaker in Gaza City echoed the Hamas message: "This is God's vengeance."

But in Jerusalem, Mark Regev, spokesman for the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, said: "Tonight's massacre is a defining moment. The people celebrating have exposed themselves for what they really are: hateful extremists."

Lloyd Maffitt, 1916-2008

A couple of weeks ago, someone I know and I found ourselves seated with Lloyd Maffitt at a round table during a wedding reception for his daughter Mary in Chicago's "312" restaurant . He held the dozen luncheon guests at the table spellbound with stories of reporting years for The Hawk Eye in Burlington, Iowa; interviews with celebrities like Truman Capote and Teddy Kennedy; and the Chicago of the last century--where he had spent his honeymoon at the Palmer House wearing the same suit he sported for the wedding we all attended. He quoted Shakespeare at lunch, too.

After the wedding luncheon, Maffitt continued holding court at the the home of the bride and groom--handling his whiskey like a newspaperman out of Hecht and MacArthur's "The Front Page."

Even from our short audience, it was obvious that Lloyd Wright Maffitt was a real character. It was a privilege to have been able to spend a day together, to celebrate his daughter Mary's wedding (he shared the scoop that her given name was Debra, as well as another scoop about her surname...) When we heard that he passed away at age 92, after a sudden illness, we were sad--but happy to hear that his hometown of Burlington, Iowa turned out en masse for his funeral. As his son-in-law told us: "He was loved." By everyone he met, including this blogger.

More on Lloyd Maffit from The Hawk Eye website:

http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/Wilson-column-022408

http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/Maffitt-022208

http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/Lloyd-022108-sidebar

DC's $50 Million Tax Theft Scandal: Where's the Outrage?

Why Hasn't DC Mayor Adrian Fenty fired Chief Financial Officer Natwar Ghandi?Today's Washington Post reported on a lackluster City Council hearing about DC's $50 million tax theft, a major felony. The embezzlement took place for years right under the nose of Natwar Ghandi, -- legally responsible for the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue. For some as yet unexplained reason, Ghandi has escaped major public censure. The Washington Post has not called for his removal, instead running a piece about his new hires who supposedly are going to fix the problem. The Post ran a bigger investigative crusade to replace the director of the National Zoo.

What do you have to do to get fired in DC? I'm a DC property taxpayer myself, and just can't believe the city can't find a better-qualified person to run the tax department--than one who didn't account for some 50 million stolen tax dollars until they were gone. Money that has still not been recovered by Ghandi to date, believe it or not... To top it off, Ghandi recently had the chutzpah to report a $96 million budget shortfall. This was presented in the Post as a serious fiscal crisis. Memo to Post editors: I'd suggest Ghandi be forced to track down the missing $50 million on his way out the door. From the Post story:

Gandhi and two newly appointed aides, tax office director Stephen Cordi and internal investigations chief Robert Andary, laid out their strategy to strengthen internal controls. Their plan, however was mostly a rehash of previously announced reforms.

The one piece of news at the hearing came in a report delivered to the committee that said Gandhi's internal auditors conducted 52 investigations into alleged criminal wrongdoing last year among the agency's 1,200 employees. The investigations found eight reports of employees accepting gratuities, seven of theft or embezzlement, one of bribery, and one of drugs. The investigations resulted in one firing, four voluntary retirements and three suspensions, the report said, and the gratuities were returned to the senders.

The report did not, however, address the fact that the internal audit team never examined the real property tax refund department at the heart of the scandal. Evans did not ask about the report.

As Bob Dole used to ask: Where's the outrage?

If DC Mayor Adrian Fenty doesn't want to appear to be part of the problem, he would do well to become part of the solution and find a replacement for Ghandi, asap.