Earlier I wrote about the oral arguments in the case of Flores-Figueroa v. U.S. in which the Supreme Court was going to decide what, in a sentence, an adverb modifies.  This would determine whether an illegal alien using false identification numbers must know the numbers belong to another person in order to be convicted of aggravated identity theft.  The Court has now decided the case in favor of the defendant, Flores-Figueroa.  See my article on the decision at Lawserver.

That’s the title of an op-ed, referring to Ayn Rand, in today’s Wall Street Journal by Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.  The answer is “yes,” perhaps now more than ever.

You can read it here:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698976776126461.html

The article is very short.  A more detailed explanation is available in an interview with Dr. Brook here: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-spring/ayn-rand-atlas-shrugged.asp

As a teenager in Russia during the Communist Revolution, Rand saw the state confiscate her father’s pharmacy business.  At once  appalled by the collectivist policies of her country while falling in love with the idea of the freedom and capitalism of America, she decided to be a writer to promote individualism.  And write she did as soon as she learned English well enough since she wanted to write, not in Russian, but in her adopted language.

Her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, is now one of the best selling books on Amazon due to it’s ominous parallels to today’s political scene – the clash between the capitalists, thinkers, creators and actual workers on the one hand and the hangers-on, welfare collectors and the government bureaucrats that enable them on the other.  Rand thought that capitalism, rather than being  something evil, is the only moral economic system, because it is the only system that promotes true liberty by allowing each person to create and trade in his or her rational self interest to the best of his or her ability without limitation or interference.

At over 1,000 pages of small print reading Atlas Shrugged is a project.  An easy introduction to her thought is Anthem, at only about 100 pages of larger print.  Somewhere in the middle is The Fountainhead, which was made into a movie starring Gary Cooper (it would be interesting to compare his character as the architect in The Fountainhead with his character as the sheriff in High Noon).  In fact, the Ayn Rand Institute offers essay contests on these three novels:  Anthem for 8th, 8th and 10th graders, The Fountainhead for 11th and 12th graders, and Atlas Shrugged for college students and graduating high school seniors.

Rand sums up her work as: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

She adds: “My personal life is a postscript to my novels; it consists of the sentence: ‘And I mean it.‘”

“[A person] knowingly transfers, possesses or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.”   In this sentence, what does the person have to know?  Does he have to know the identification belongs to another person or does he merely have to know he is using a means of identification?

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments to decide what, in a criminal statute, the word “knowingly” modifies.  The case of Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa v. United States of America asks the question:  is it identity theft if an illegal alien buys and uses a false Social Security number without knowing that it belongs to someone else?  Figueroa, a citizen of Mexico, had been working in the US under a false name and false documents with made up numbers for some time.  In a distinct moment of unclarity he decided to work under his own name so he bought new fake documents and told his employer he wanted to start using his real name and the new documents.  The employer became suspicious and called ICE.   Figueroa pled guilty to misuse of immigration documents and entering the United States without inspection.  Unfortunately for him, it turned out that the numbers on the Social Security card and the “Green Card” actually did belong to someone else, although the rightful owner was apparently unharmed.  For this he  was also charged with, and ultimately convicted of, aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C 1028A(a)(1) which provides two years in prison for a person who “during and in relation to” certain other crimes “knowingly transfers, possesses or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.”

The question that remains is whether he can be convicted even though he did not know the number actually belonged to someone else.  It hinges on whether the adverb “knowingly” modifies just the verbs “transfers, possesses or uses” as the government claims or whether it also modifies “another person” as the defendant claims.

The briefs of both the defendant and the government go on and on page after page with citations of how other courts applied “knowingly” their way and how definitive books on grammar dictate that it be applied their way.    There was even a Brief for Professors of Linguistics in Support of Neither Party.   The professors do, however, support the defendant.  The say the natural reading of the sentence is unambiguous because an adverb, in this case “knowingly,” “modifies the entire predicate consisting of the verbs and their direct object.”  To paraphrase one of their numerous examples, “Fat Tuesday knowingly allowed the purchase of beer by a person under the age of 21.”  Clearly this does not mean that Fat only knew he was allowing something, or even allowing a purchase, or even allowing the purchase of beer.  Clearly it means Fat knew the people allowed to purchase the beer were underage.

A number of criminal defense and pro-immigration groups filed amicus briefs supporting the defendant while some victim’s rights groups filed briefs supporting the government.  That makes sense because if the government wins, Figueroa will be convicted even though he did not know he was harming anyone, but if he wins it means victims have no recourse through no fault of their own.  From what I read in the news about the oral arguments, to the extent the mainstream media can be believed, it seems that the Court did focus on these policy issues more than the grammar issues, and they did seem to lean in favor of the defendant.

As much as I may be a law and order defend the border kind of guy, I have to come out on the side of the defendant in this case.  The statute was drafted poorly if Congress intended it to mean what the prosecutors claim it means.  The plain language supports the defendant and cases should be decided on what a statute (or the Constitution!) says, not on what a majority of the judges want it to say.

You can read all of the briefs at:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb09.shtml#flores

Thanks president Obama, for putting all the unemployed lawyers back to work.  The legal industry has been hit hard by the recession, but that’s over now.  What some people call the 1,100 page Stimulus bill is really the Lawyer’s Full Employment bill.  Can you imagine how many lawyers its going to take to interpret it, explain it, write articles about it, find mistakes in it, be on talk shows about it?  Then comes the regulations.  Oh yes, any government agencies involved, like the White House Mall Sod Revitalization Administration, will want to write regulations, and who do you think will be writing them?  Lawyers.  After that we have the bidding process for the companies who want to revitalize the sod or build the skateboard park or supply the condoms.  You have to have lawyers manage the process, but not to be greedy, maybe some accountants will be included as well.  Don’t forget the fun part, the litigation – suing the government on behalf of aggreived parties who are not getting their fair share, beneficiaries suing each other, and finally, everybody suing everybody else.  This is the best thing for the legal community since ERISA!

Question: Why did Obama appoint a Republican to head the Department of Commerce?

Answer: He couldn’t find any Democrats who paid their taxes!

Obama has talked about the importance of being his “brother’s keeper” a number of times.  For example, in his keynote speech at the 2004 Democrat convention he said:

“If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper — that makes this country work.” 

And, at Rick Warren’s interview at the Saddleback church he said: “Americans’ greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers you do for me.” (I’m pretty sure the question was “what has been your greatest moral failure,” but, not surprisingly, Obama universalized it.  This is in keeping with the criticism of him that he has witnessed his life, but not really participated in it.)

First there was the story about his brother, George, living in squalor in Kenya. 

 http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/thy_brothers_keeper.html

Now a story has come out in a British newspaper that his aunt is living in a public housing project in Boston.  The AP finally picked up the story when it was revealed that she is not only living in public housing, but is an illegal alien.  A judge denied her request for asylum and ordered her deported four years ago.  (Gee, I wonder how many other illegal aliens are living in public housing?)  Also, she donated $260 to Obama’s campaign, which is illegal since only citizens and lawful permanent residents may donate to presidential campaigns.  (hmm, a poor person giving money to a rich person, is that what Obama stands for?)  On the donation form she listed her employer as the Boston Public Housing Authority.  Have any reporters checked whether she really works there, which would also be illegal, or whether she paid for it with welfare money?  Either way, it came from the taxpayers.

This is not a long-lost or secret relative, this is the “Aunti Zeituni” that Obama lovingly talked about in his memoir, “Nightmares of My Father.”  As explained in the link below, it’s just another one of the people in his life that he’s “thrown under the bus.”  It’s already started, this morning Obama’s campaign said he had no knowledge of her immigration status. 

  http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/time-to-throw-auntie-under-the-bus/

It is in perfect keeping with his socialist views of spreading the wealth around as long as it’s not his wealth.  See the link below.

http://conservativesformccain.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/obamas-aunt-zeituni-onyango/

One of the most interesting things about the AP article is it seems to be imply that the immigration authorities were trying to cover this up until after the election:

“Onyango’s case — coming to light just days before the presidential election — led to an unusual nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring that any deportations before Tuesday’s election be approved at least at the level of the agency’s regional directors, the U.S. law enforcement official told the AP.  The unusual directive suggests that the administration is sensitive to the political implications of Onyango’s case coming to light so close to the election.”

 A few years ago I went to a Chicago hotel for a meeting of the National Home Equity Mortgage Association where we tried to listen to speakers talk about facilitating ethical lending to qualified borrowers of all races.  The speakers went along smoothly until all of a sudden there was a commotion in the back.  At first I didn’t know what was going on.  The hotel staff seemed to be struggling with a group of people.  Then the group pushed past the hotel staff and marched on stage with signs saying “ACORN” and disrupting the speakers.  They were yelling that the lenders MUST give more loans to inner-city, low-income borrowers to buy houses.  Aside from the fact that they were in the wrong place because these were home equity (second mortgage) lenders, they weren’t the least bit concerned with whether the borrowers could afford the loans.   They didn’t care about the lenders getting paid back, but only about getting more money into the inner-city. 

I’m not saying Obama was one of them.  I wouldn’t have known who he was then, just a few years ago.  He probably trained them, but wasn’t keen about being on the front lines.    His claim to experience is that he was a “community organizer.”  Specifically, he was a leadership trainer and lawyer for ACORN.   

ACORN stands for “Association of Community Organiszations.” Recently there have been news reports of ACORN storming meetings of the Mortgage Bankers Association, again in Chicago, demanding a reprieve from forclosures for inner-city dwellers.  So let me get this straight.  First they demand that lenders, who are in business and have stockholders, give loans to people who don’t have the means to pay them back, then they demand that these same lenders don’t foreclose when the loans aren’t paid back.  Looks like the makings of a morgage crisis to me. 

Just look at the ACORN website.  It says “No other organization has fought harder to increase access to credit for low-income and minority families than ACORN.”  Notice the words “low-income.”  OK, so people have to have a place to live, but does everyone have a right to buy a house?  There is nothing in the ACORN agenda about working hard to earn money.  But it does say: “ACORN is working to make affordable housing available so people in low – and moderate – income neighborhoods can be homeowners.  ACORN members demand more rehabilitation programs aimed at developing affordable housing and increased production of affordable housing.”  It’s all about demanding and entitlement. 

I worked in the mortgage industry for 20 years and I can tell you first hand that lenders do not want to discriminate.  They’re in business like everyone else, to make money.  They don’t care about the color of the borrowers, but they don’t make money if they don’t get paid back.  When that happens, either because the government required them to make the loans through the Community Reinvestment Act or because community organizers threatened them with bogus actions under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the result is the same. a mortgage meltdown.

Many people blame the meltdown on the greed of the lenders and the greed of Wall Street, but isn’t what ACORN doing an example of greed as well?  I’m not much of a Bible quoter, but isn’t there something about “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” or “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s donkey” or “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house?”  That’s exactly what is going on here and it is the basis of Obama’s socialism.  What else is behind his redistribution of wealth but jealosy of the success of others?

The moderator of Thursday night’s V.P. debate is Gwen Ifill of PBS.  She should step down as moderator due to her personal and financial interest in Obama succeding in his campaign.  It’s bad enough that she is from PBS, a liberal tax-payer funded organization, but she has a book coming out praising Obama and his campaign.  It is called “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama” and will be released on Inaguration day.  You can already pre-order it from Amazon or Target for the discounted price of $16.47.  The publisher’s blurb says: “In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.”  Not surprsingly, all of the polititians profiled are Democrats.

The book not a secret, it is mentioned on the “About Gwen Ifil” page on the PBS website.  Bloggers and Fox News are talking about it today, but I have not been able to find anything about it on the MSM, including CNN and Yahoo news.  Let me know if I missed it.

I won’t bother to go into why Ifill’s liberal leanings should have disqualified her anyhow, the point here is that she has a financial interest in the outcome of the election.  Clearly, her book will sell more copies if Obama is elected.  Don’t journalists have a code of ethics?  She says she can still be impartial.  What if the moderator were Greta van Sustern or Meghan Kelly of Fox News and had written a book about the breadthrough politics of Sarah Palin and other Republican women?  The liberals would have a fit, and rightly so.  At the very least, if no one impartial can be found, Greta or Meghan or Sean Hannity should be added.

Incidentally, one of the other politicians she profiles in the book is Artur Davis, the Congressman from Alabama who defended Fannie and Freddie when Bush and McCain tried to impose more oversight in 2004.  He just apologised for not recognizing the trouble earlier.  What’s your bet her book does not mention his role in causing the current economic crisis?

Check out Monica Crowley’s article “This Close to a Chest Full of Medals” at www.humanevents.com.

On a Sunday interview show (the same one where he referred to “my Muslim faith”?)  Obama talked about how he almost sorta thought about maybe joining the military when he graduated from high school.  He said when he graduated from high school in 1979 he registered with the Selective Service and considered joining, but didn’t because the Vietnam war was over and there weren’t any new wars going on at the time.  I guess he thought ”why bother if I can’t be Rambo.”  It shows he didn’t get then as he doesn’t get now that a strong peacetime military helps keep the peace.  The military has also saved and improved lives by providing aid in times of natural disasters, both in this country and abroad, but apparently he thought that sort of community service pales in comparison to organizing demonstrations by poor people to get mortgages they can’t afford. (more on his role with ACORN later)  It is also another example of his mastery of victimology.  It’s as if he is blaming the world for not having any wars to give him the opportunity to show his heroism.  He wants us to think he could have done everything John McCain did if only he had the chance.  Well, sorry Barry if the world treated you so badly.

Is any of what he said true or is it just something he made up now to appear more mainstream?  Two things raise doubt.  As Monica points out, he is a man who has written two books about himself and didn’t mention thinking about joining the military.  BTW has anybody else in history had such a big ego that they had to write two memoirs before they had ever even gotten a real job?  Oh, wait a minute, he’s still never had a real job.  The other thing that calls his account into questions is that according to the Selective Service website “registration was suspended early in 1975″ and reinstated by Jimmy Carter in 1980.  So there was no registration in 1979.  Maybe the year he graduated from high school just slipped his mind and he really meant 1980.  After all, that is hard to remember.  OMG, maybe all these years he’s been going to the wrong reunions!

Ok, so I just got back from Alaska shortly before McCain picked Palin and no I didn’t meet her, but believe it or not I was hoping he would pick her.  For those people who said they never heard of her before, they haven’t been paying attention. She was one of the possible running mates mentioned months ago so it was somewhat of a surprise because I haven’t heard much about her lately, but not a total surprise.

Anyway, I thought her speech tonight was terrific.  Her delivery was fantastic.  Everyone talks about what a great speaker Obama is but personally, I don’t like the sound of his voice or his mannerisms.  His delivery irritates me as it seems like he is preaching to the audience and talking down to it.  With Sarah I felt like she was just being herself talking to me. 

What about the others?  Rudy was the same.  He also hit it out of the park.  He seemed so natural.  Laura Lingle, the gov. of Hawaii, also did a nice job.  Interesting that the governors of both Hawaii and Alaska are Republican women.  Another Republican woman, Michelle Bachman the Congresswoman from Minnesota, also did a nice job.  Neither of them showed the presence of Sarah, though.  Huckabee was good, but not as good as Rudy.  Joe Lieberman made a very inspiring speech.  In the past, I have not liked his voice very much, finding it rather  weak and whiney.  Last night I thought he had a lot of energy and sounded the best I’ve ever heard him.  You could tell it was hard for him to go against his party but he had to follow through with what he sincerely believes.  Thompson did a wonderful speech as well.  If he had spoken like this in his own campaign he might have lasted longer.  One gets the feeling he has more confidence in McCain than he did in himself.  I read liberal bloggers complaining that he cleared his voice 70-some times.  I never noticed it.  They’ll pick on any silly thing.  I even thought GW did a good job.  Of course he’s not great at presentation like Rudy, but he didn’t flub anything either.  The only speaker I was disappointed in was Romney.  He talked too fast like he was rushing through it and wanted to get it over with.  I like him and thought he would be a good president or vice-president even though he is stiff.  Stiff might not be such a bad guality in a president.

And did you get a look at that Palin family?  Each one is better looking than the next!  I’m sure I’ll be frustrated tomorrow when I read the liberal bloggers saying they’re ugly or some other hateful things about them. 

Cindy McCain seemed very relaxed with the Palin family.  Having raised seven kids herself, she was right at home.  As much as I like Laura Bush, she always looks uncomfortable.  Cindy seemed like she was having a wonderful time and really likes the Palins.  Me too.