US Ends the 1955 Treaty of Amity With Iran

In a move that will surely enrage the usual Democrat foreign policy "experts", the US announced today that it had terminated the Treaty of Amity signed in 1955 with Iran.  The US took this action after the so called International Court of Justice ruled that due to that treaty, American sanctions on Iran had to be limited to provide for humanitarian exceptions as well as to provide for continued safety for international aviation.  The International Court of Justice is a UN agency that tries to rule on disputes between nations.  Iran had brought the case before the court after the Trump Administration reimposed sanctions on Iran when the US exited the JCPOA as the nuclear deal with Iran is known.  America had argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, but the judges issued a preliminary ruling anyway.

By ending the treaty, the US takes away the basis for the court's ruling.  It also makes a lot of sense for that treaty to end.  For example, the Treaty of Amity requires each country to protect and defend the diplomats of the other country.  Surely we all remember 1979 when the Iranian government stormed the US embassy and held the American diplomats hostage for 444 days.  It's safe to say that Iran had totally breached the treaty long ago.

I'm sure we will shortly hear from some self proclaimed "expert" like John Kerry or even Hillary Clinton about the sanctity of international treaties and about how President Trump is destroying America's position in the world by his actions with regard to Iran.  No doubt, these "experts" liked it better when the US was delivering billions of dollars in cash to the mullahs to get nothing in return. 

The NY Times and The Trump Family Taxes

It's unclear where the NY Times got its hands on the financial records of the President's father and his company (if it really did), but the Times is now using those records to claim all sorts of dubious things.

1.  Supposedly, President Trump got over $400 million from his father, or so says the Times and the many other outlets that repeat the story.  It's important to note, though, that it really isn't $400 million plus; that's the supposed current value of what he got.  The number is much lower even if you accept the Times' premise; they just pumped it up due to inflation to make it look larger.

2.  Supposedly, President Trump and his siblings got buildings from their father that were worth much more than the value used in filing estate and gift tax returns.  The Times calls this tax fraud.  It's not.  Indeed, it's not even close.  When the President's father died, his estate was audited by the IRS.  That means that the IRS checked to confirm the values used on the estate tax return.  I haven't seen the estate tax return, but you can be certain that the return was filed along with appraisals by real estate professionals for each property.  That is standard practice for estate attorneys.  The same would be true of gift tax returns filed prior to the father's death. 

The Times claims that the values used by the Trump family were only about 10% of the actual market value and points out that most of the buildings sold for many times more than the value on the return about a decade later.  That's not unusual in the New York real estate market.  Look at the example of Olympia and York.  They bought about ten office buildings in Manhattan in the late 1970s for roughly 300 million dollars.  By five years later, the same buildings were worth about $4 billion.  In 1980, the Seagrams building on Park Avenue was sold for roughly 90 million in an auction.  By ten years later, that same building was valued at more than 1.5 billion dollars.  Residential real estate has moved in wild fluctuations as well.  There are many people who bought properties and sold them a few years later for five or ten times the purchase price.  It's impossible to value NYC real estate based upon where the price was ten years earlier.

3.  Another charge made by the Times is that the President and his siblings helped his father defraud the IRS by organizing a business to pad the bills paid by the father's company through the 1990s with false charges.  This let the father transfer the cash without paying gift taxes, supposedly.  But think about that for a moment.  Let's assume that the President got $5 million dollars from this alleged scam.  That $5 million would come to the President most likely as ordinary income.  That means he paid 38% federal income tax, about 10% state tax and about 6% city income tax on the money.  That's roughly a 50% tax rate.  If the father had just gifted the money to his children, the gift tax would have been 45% and there would have been no income tax paid by the President and his siblings.  That's a lower overall rate.

I don't know where the Times got its info, and I cannot determine the details that underlie some of the broad charges the paper levels, but I do know this:  much of what the paper says is wrong, even silly.

"Unsubstantiated"???? -- The Keith Ellison Whitewash

We all know the details of the claims against Bret Kavanaugh.  His main accuser, Dr. Ford, testified to Congress.  She doesn't recall most of the details about the alleged attack.  She doesn't know where or when it happened.  She's changed her story about who else was present.  There are no witnesses who can confirm the event or even that Dr. Ford told them about it at the time.  She never went to the police.  It's just her word against the denials by Judge Kavanaugh and the fact that the other people she says were there have no memory of any such event happening.

The vice chair of the Democrat National Committee, congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, has also been facing accusations of physical and sexual abuse of his girlfriend.  Ms Monahan (the girlfriend) did not bring her charges forward.  They were made public by her son.  The Democrat party in Minnesota turned the matter over to a local lawyer for investigation and she produced a report which calls the claims "unsubstantiated."  Really?  UNSUBSTANTIATED???

It's worth a look to compare the claims by Dr. Ford against Kavanaugh (which the Democrats call the worst thing ever) to the claims by Ms Monahan against Ellison, a high ranking Democrat (which the Dems say are unsubstantiated).

Dr. Ford can't say where or when the alleged attack happened.  Ms Monahan can give and has given specific dates and times for each assault by Ellison.

Dr. Ford never told anyone about the alleged assault so she has no witnesses from the days of that alleged assault.  Ms. Monahan told a number of friends of the attack at the time.  They corroborate her story.  There are also emails in which she described the attack.  All of this corroboration predate her story being mentioned in the media by about a year and a half.

Dr. Ford didn't call the police.  Ms Monahan called 911 and the police came to her residence after the attack.  Monahan identified Ellison by name at that time as her attacker.

The witnesses mentioned by Dr. Ford do not recall anything like what she claimed happening.  Ms Monahan has medical records from the time when she sought treatment for the injuries inflicted allegedly by Ellison on her.

But the Democrats say the Kavanaugh attack was real and the Ellison attack was "unsubstantiated."  Amazing hypocrisy.

The Democrats run around screaming that we should "believe" women.  What they really mean is that we should believe women if they claim to have been attacked by a Republican but disbelieve them if they claim with lots of corroborating evidence that they were attacked by a Democrat.

Let's think of it this way.  If you put all the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee into a room and held a séance in which the spirit of Mary Jo Kopechne came to them and said that she had been left to die by Ted Kennedy, they would all say in unison "We don't believe you!"

UNWRA -- What Is It Really?

The United Nations runs a "refugee assistance" organization just for Palestinian refugees.  It's known as UNWRA.  I was struck today by this description of UNWRA by the AP

UNRWA provides services to about 5 million Palestinian refugees across Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank and Gaza. Most are descendants of some 700,000 Palestinians who were driven out of their homes or fled fighting in the 1948 war that led to Israel's creation.

Think about that.  The "refugees" that this organization serves are descendants of people who had to move due to a war that happened 70 years ago.  The event in question happened so long ago, that most people alive today have no memory of it ever happening.  Let's put it another way.  The Korean War took place in 1950-53.  That means it ended 65 years ago.  If a person fled North Korea (as a child) ahead of the fighting and ended up in South Korea, should the UN provide support for that person today?  And how about that person's children and grandchildren and, perhaps, great-grandchildren.  Should the UN be supporting all of these people today?  Remember the Korean War had the UN on one side of the conflict, so the refugees were directly the result of UN action.  Still, no one would seriously contend that the UN should be supporting these so-called refugees and their descendants. So why are the Palestinians treated differently?

For twenty years after the so called refugee problem first surfaced, these people lived under Arab rule in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.  There was no reason for them not to be assimilated into these friendly societies.  They were not, however, because the Arabs wanted to keep them separate as a cause, something that could be used to bludgeon the Israelis.

I ask the question again, however. Why is it the UN's responsibility to help the descendants of the Palestinian refugees?

Today, in Gaza, the employees of UNWRA threatened the senior managers of UNWRA.  In fact, these managers had to be evacuated from Gaza and into Israel.  This all happened because UNWRA announced that it would have to lay off about 100 employees as a result of the USA stopping further payments to UNWRA.  But isn't it time that these people had to support themselves? 

The ACLU Steps Out Of It's Phony Non-partisanship

For the longest time, the ACLU has been an arm of the Democrat party.  Nevertheless, the ACLU leadership constantly claimed to be non-partisan.  Now, however, the ACLU is actually running ads in key states attacking Bret Kavanaugh and calling for the local senator to vote against his confirmation.  Here's a link to an example.

That is a clear partisan shot in support of Democrats during an election campaign.  It also ought to be considered enough of an involvement in partisan politics that the ACLU should lose its status as a charitable organization.

I have no problem with the ACLU campaigning for the Democrats.  This is America, and it is the right of everyone to have and express political views.  It is wrong, indeed a crime, however, for a supposed non-profit with tax free status to engage in political campaigning.

The Justice Department should be investigating this mess immediately and the tax exempt status of the ACLU should be rescinded.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey......

There's a poll out today from Stockton on the New Jersey senate race.  It shows Bob Menendez the Democrat felon..err, candidate ahead of his relatively unknown GOP challenger Bob Hugin by 45% to 43%.  Further, those polled had a strong negative opinion about Menendez and a somewhat positive opinion about Hugin.

These are incredible results for a New Jersey senate race.  After all, the Democrats haven't lost a senate race in NJ for 46 years.  The last time a Democrat incumbent lost in NJ was 1928.  To say the least, a loss by Menendez would be amazing.

Of course, given that this is New Jersey, the most likely outcome in November would be that Menendez squeaks by and gets re-elected.  The movement in the polls, however, has all been against him.  There's a pretty strong campaign across New Jersey which keeps hammering Menendez for his corruption problems and all that went with it.  His trial on federal charges (brought by the Obama Justice Department) ended with a deadlocked jury, so he avoided conviction.  Still, Menendez had to admit his frequent free acceptance of "gifts" from a large campaign contributor in Florida who Menendez then helped in his dealings with Medicare.  That contributor is a doctor who was convicted of defrauding the government out of tens of millions of dollars.  There's no way to put a happy face on what Menendez did in this regard.

If November comes and the people of New Jersey still remember all the corruption of Menendez (and they will given the big campaign against him), the voters will surely find it hard to cast a ballot to send this crook back to the senate.  The big question is whether or not the voters will choose the Republican or, alternatively, decide not to vote at all. 

One thing is certain:  if Bob Hugin wins this race, there is no realistic way that the Dems could take control of the Senate.

Iran Goes Ballistic -- Again

Iran launched a group of ballistic missiles at a site in Syria today.  The missiles hit in and around Abu Kamal, a city on the Euphrates river on the border between Syria and Iraq.  The Iranians said this was retaliation against the groups responsible for the terrorist attack on a military parade that killed about 30 people in Iran in September.  Iranian TV made a show of the launch of the missiles; some were inscribed with "death to Israel" or "death to America".

Here's the problem though.  Abu Kamal was the last city retaken from ISIS in Syria.  The forces that took the city were those of the Assad regime and the Iranian forces in Syria.  As far as I can tell, the Assad/Iranian coalition remains in control in Abu Kamal.  So who were the Iranians attacking?  Surely it wasn't Assad or their own troops.  Most likely, this missile launch with all the surrounding hoopla was an event meant for internal consumption.  The target was in Syria, but it was likely an open area where no one was located.  Indeed, there are no reports of casualties or even damage from the missiles.

This move should not surprise anyone.  Even if Iran seriously blames the terrorist attack on America (which is ludicrous), it would not dare blatantly to launch missiles at American troops in Syria.  First, they might be shot down by missile defenses which would embarrass the mullahs.  Much more important, however, were the Iranians to attack and harm any American troops, President Trump would likely retaliate with some sort of strike on Iranian military facilities.  Teheran would not risk that.