Category Archives: morality

Integrity

Posted on by
2

Recall that Paul Manafort, briefly a campaign mucky-muck for then-Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, is on trial for a number of tax and bank fraud charges.

One of those charges relates to a tax return filed by Manafort that supposedly

contained inaccurate information [that] falsely reduced his tax liability by classifying millions of dollars she believed was income as loans.

The accountant who filed the return, Cindy Laporta (“she” in the above cite) testified under oath last week at Manafort’s trial that [emphasis added]

manipulating tax returns in such a way was “inappropriate” and that she knew it was wrong, but did it because Mr Manafort was a longtime client of her firm. “I prepared the tax returns and communicated with banks based on information that [Richard] Gates and Mr Manafort provided to me that I didn’t believe[.]”

This included such incidents as

Ms Laporta said she agreed to help finesse [Manafort’s] company’s income, recasting $900,000 as a loan, based on a two-page loan agreement that appeared to be from one of Mr Manafort’s clients, Telmar, that she suspected was fake.

And another:

Messrs Manafort and Gates pressed her to send to the banks what she believed were false documents purportedly forgiving the previously booked loans, after the banks had asked to see more income to provide the mortgages.

She could have refused to do these things.  She chose, instead, to be serially dishonest.

Laporta was granted immunity for this testimony.

Given her testimony that she contributed to falsifying tax documents—Federal felonies (and State felonies if these affected any State taxes)—why should any of her testimony be believed?  She’s confessed to being dishonest; how can we take any of her testimony as other than dishonest?

On the other hand, Mueller’s Manafort prosecutors traded her immunity for her testimony.  On what basis then, can we conclude she simply didn’t sell her testimony like a Thursday night hooker?  Alternatively, on what basis can we conclude she wasn’t brow-beaten, with those felonies of hers as cudgel, into testifying the way she has?  Either way, it seems clear to me that it was the Mueller prosecutors, not Laporta, who testified during Laporta’s time on the stand; they were just using her mouth to do so.

College Admissions and Diversity

Posted on by
1

Harvard is claiming that it needs to select preferentially for race in its admissions in order to achieve its student body diversity goals.

…it has tried alternatives to race-conscious affirmative action to diversify its undergraduate student body, but such efforts would harm both the diversity and academic strength of the class.

This is nonsense.

“Affirmative action” programs, giving preferential treatment as they do (however small the preference is claimed to be) to persons based on their race (and/or sex in most other such programs), are fundamentally racist. More broadly, when there are limited classroom seats (let’s say) discriminating in favor of one group—whether by race or by merit—necessarily discriminates against other groups: those not preferred.

Harvard’s claim that they need race-based affirmative action admissions is at best cynical. Were Harvard serious about improving diversity, they’d be moving to improve the quality of education in K-12 schools so that diversity would fall out of the merit of those graduates and not out of race-based selection. Harvard is silent on its actions in that milieu.

Tolerance

Posted on by
Reply

According to the Left.  It seems that liberal actor Mark Duplass had tweeted some praise for the Conservative Ben Shapiro.  Duplass committed the unpardonable sin of saying Shapiro was a “genuine person,” and he

encouraged “fellow liberals” to follow Shapiro if they are interested in hearing perspective from the other side of the political aisle.

Oh so tolerant (and loudly and proudly tolerant) Left got on Duplass about that.  Rather than going on about his business, ignoring that wind in the trees, though, Duplass cowered under his desk and apologized for his offense.

So that tweet was a disaster on many levels. I want to be clear that I in no way endorse hatred, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any such form of intolerance.  My goal has always been to spread unity, understanding, and kindness.

As Shapiro put it in response to the diatribe,

…write a nice tweet about someone with whom you disagree politically, get labeled a racist sexist homophobe. Good stuff, guys. Really showing that tolerant streak[.]

Duplass’ cowardice has demonstrated the Left’s hatred and intolerance.

Misunderstood

Posted on by
Reply

A 13-year-old Huntsville girl was beheaded after she witnessed her grandmother assaulted with a knife and left to die on the ground in a cemetery, court testimony revealed.

A child.

The butchers were members of the Sinaloa cartel; apparently, they were disgruntled with the grandmother’s handling of a drug delivery.  It’s also…interesting…that the thugs chose to take the child along with the grandmother to the site where murder occurred, supposedly just to remonstrate with her before “[t]he argument escalated.”

These are the beasts that the Progressive-Democrats insist are not animals, just misunderstood yout’s.

An Award, or Two

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Congressman Steve Cohen’s (D, TN) performance during last week’s House hearings with Peter Strzok, during which Cohen said Strzok deserved a Purple Heart for the questions he was being asked.  This, of course, is outrageous, deprecating as it does the decoration for servicemen who are wounded or killed in combat defending the right of guys like Cohen to be stupidly insulting.

As Sean Higgins, an Air Force veteran, put it,

How do you compare someone getting wounded in combat to someone getting in trouble for message he sent?

Indeed.

Cohen, on hearing the outrage (and not before) expressed regret for his comparison.

I regret mentioning the Purple Heart medal at yesterday’s hearing. My intent was to speak metaphorically to make a broader point about attacks against the FBI and Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into a Russian attack on our country[.]

This is nonsense.  Cohen is an experienced politician; words are his stock in trade.  He knew exactly what he was “mentioning;” it plainly was a carefully planned slur against his Republican colleagues.  Were he regretful, he would have walked back his comment before the risk of political damage from it arose.

On the other hand, both Strzok and Cohen do deserve awards.  Strzok should get an Oscar for his performance as Starring Witness with his carefully staged outrage over his being called—gently—to answer for his shameful behavior as an FBI agent pretending to investigate Hillary Clinton’s (D) email escapades and Trump-Russia collusion.

Cohen deserves an Oscar for Best Supporting Politician for his staged “outrage” over the questioning of Strzok.

Voters should remember Cohen’s acting this fall.