Maybe one of the reasons young people don’t comprehend the horrors of the Holocaust is the same reason they don’t relate to older movies: they’re averse to anything in black and white, and most of the images of World War II are in black and white. If that’s the case, then this just might be the shock treatment cure for apathy about concentration camps.
At that link are a number of photos of Auschwitz and Dachau and their inmates, victims and survivors, many of them children. Some of these photos have been expertly colorized using digital technology, to make them look exactly as they did in real life at the time. I must warn you: these photos were already very disturbing, but with the added shocking immediacy of color, they are even more so. I can’t imagine anyone who sees them ever questioning why we continue to observe International Holocaust Remembrance Day even though 75 years have now passed.
As part of Thursday’s “impeachment” Q&A in the Senate, the House impeachment managers again made the demonstrably false claim that any suspicions of corruption involving Joe and Hunter Biden and Ukraine are proven falsehoods and a “debunked” conspiracy theory. I loved the way the President’s Attorneys followed that by answering the question, “Which federal agency has investigated and ‘debunked’ those suspicions?” Answer: none.
Now, with Laurel and Hardy-level impeccable timing comes this story: former Ukrainian prosecutor General Viktor Shokin (whom Biden bragged about getting fired by threatening to withhold a billion dollars in foreign aid) “has demanded that the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) open criminal proceedings against former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden for illegal influence on him as the prosecutor general of Ukraine,” under Part 2 of Article 343 of Ukraine's Criminal Code.
Shokin’s statement to authorities reads, “During the last months of 2015 and the first of 2016, Joseph Biden, using his official position, personally paid official visits to Ukraine several times with the aim of holding negotiations with the state leaders on my removal from my post. As a result, he curtailed an objective investigation (of) criminal proceedings on the facts of unlawful activities of persons associated with the company Burisma Holdings Limited (Cyprus), including the son of the specified high-ranking official.” Shokin claims he agreed to resign due to pressure from Biden to withhold a U.S. state guarantee in the amount of $1 billion, an act the International Law Association concludes was illegal pressure.
Well, this will make any future state visits to Ukraine by a President Biden awfully awkward! He might have to dodge process servers like Hillary Clinton does.
Democrats keep telling us that “nobody is above the law,” but we’ve learned that by “nobody” they mean “Any big name Democrat.” The latest example is also one of the most famous prior examples.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton for $50 million for defaming her as a “Russian asset.” And Hillary is dodging the summons. When a process server came to Chappaqua to deliver the court documents, the Secret Service (which I thought was there to protect her from attackers, not the law) turned the process server away. The server was directed to the office of Hillary’s lawyer, David Kendall, who also turned the process server away. Gabbard’s attorneys are considering what to try next.
Personally, I’d say the server is lucky, considering what Hillary did to the last server that posed a legal threat to her. At least this server didn’t get erased, bleached and smashed with a hammer.
Humor Break: The Senate could use a laugh break amid all the “impeachment” tedium, and they got one Wednesday, when a planned publicity stunt by Chuck Schumer backfired. He had invited Lev Parnas, the indicted alleged fraudster and known liar who’s claiming to have damaging information on Trump, to come to the trial. Unfortunately for Schumer, Parnas couldn’t get into the chamber because electronics are banned, and he has to wear an ankle bracelet monitor. Man, there’s a ringing endorsement for your star witness!
Let’s hope the ban on ankle monitors is never extended to the entire Capitol or the Democratic House might not be able to reach a quorum.
Wednesday, while House Democrats were…well, you know what they were doing…President Trump was officially signing the new USMCA North American trade agreement into law, replacing the job-killing NAFTA treaty. Fox Business described it as “the biggest trade deal of all time,” worth an estimated $1.3 trillion. It is expected to create thousands of US jobs, help prevent American jobs from being outsourced, and bring billions in new revenues, especially for US farmers and ranchers.
In an amusingly telling decision, Trump signed the bill on the White House lawn, surrounded by hundreds of CEOs, union representatives, ranchers and farmers, but not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That’s understandable: at least the pig farmers know how to control their pigs.
Jonathan Chiat of New York magazine has made a career out of telling liberals what Republicans are thinking with the same level of accuracy of a blind man describing what an elephant looks like by feeling its tail. This is his latest effort at mind-reading the opposition:
"Many Republicans started the process believing 1) President Trump did not demand investigation in return for aid but that 2) doing so would be unacceptable. They now believe the opposite on both points."
For the record, I’ve been saying from the beginning that while I don’t believe Trump did that (he denies it, I’ve seen no convincing evidence to the contrary, and I still believe in archaic concepts like “innocent until proven guilty”), that if he did demand Ukraine clean up corruption before giving them a mountain of our tax money, I’d consider that just doing his job under the Constitution and under a treaty with Ukraine signed by Bill Clinton. And if any of that alleged corruption involved high US officials, the fact that they might be running for President has no bearing on whether they should be investigated. If anything, it should make investigating them more urgent (the FBI certainly seemed to think that even the most transparently bogus Russia rumors about candidate Trump warranted investigation.) Hillary Clinton’s example aside, running for President as a Democrat should not be a free pass for violating federal law.
This brings us to today’s must-read article by Kyle Smith at National Review (I’m not linking to Jonathan Chiat, that quote above tells you enough.) It’s a hilariously brutal review of Hulu’s new documentary, “Hillary,” which is made by a director so blinded by partisan worship of her subject that she doesn’t realize how much ugly truth is peeking through the veneer of Hillary’s excuses, rationalizations, projection and blame-shifting for her own failures and misconduct.
This ties in with Chiat’s obliviousness about what people outside his liberal bubble are really thinking, particularly when Hillary declares (and I am not making this up), “I am the most-investigated innocent person in America.” Outside the bubble, those of us who followed that farcical “investigation” of her email server tend to think of her as the least-prosecuted guilty person.
So who is the “most-investigated innocent person?” Can you think of someone who’s had to endure three years of investigations and accusations, including a $30 million probe of “Russian collusion to influence the 2016 election” by hostile, partisan, corrupt federal agents with virtually no limits on what they were allowed to look into? And even after they found nothing, he’s still accused of it anyway? And it all stemmed from an actual, verified act of collusion with Russian sources to influence the 2016 election paid for by…Hillary Clinton? Whoever the person is who had to endure all that, I’m sure Hillary would tell us that it’s all Trump’s fault.