Jordan, the plans you made put an end to you...

 

Just yesterday morning, they let me know you were gone;

Suzanne, the plans they made put an end to you.

I walked out this morning and I wrote down this song,

I just can't remember who to send it to.

Hunter Biden Art Sham Gets Shadier As It's Revealed His Art Dealer Wanted to Be 'Lead Guy in China'

"Me Love You Long Time", Artist Hunter Biden circa 2021

You seriously can’t make this stuff up.

First son Hunter Biden’s incredibly suspicious art career couldn’t possibly get any more suspicious at this point, not if he were directly selling his artwork for billions of dollars to Iranian mullahs.

He’s not, as far as we know, but with the incredibly dubious means through which the Biden administration is vowing to establish ethics are preserved as he sells his mediocre work, there’s no telling who is buying it at this point.

This week, Fox News reported that Georges Bergès, the owner of the Manhattan art gallery where the problematic political son will be launching his new art career, declared in 2015 that he wanted to be the “lead guy” in China’s burgeoning art world (which is, apparently, a thing).

Not only is Bergès the proprietor of the establishment where Hunter’s paintings could be listed for as much as $500,000 — an astronomical sum for any artist, let alone an amateur — but he was also touted by the White House as the person they have trusted to make sure that there’s no potential for influence peddling as Hunter Biden, a man long accused of selling access to his powerful father and benefitting handsomely from his family name, sells the art he just started making five seconds ago for tens of thousands of dollars.

Stop the censors, sign up to get today's top stories delivered right to your inbox

See what I mean? I couldn’t possibly make up something this absurd to add to the menagerie of reasons why we should be incredibly concerned about Hunter Biden’s art career as a matter of...

Report: France Tried To Warn U.S. In 2015 That China Kicked Them Out Of Wuhan Lab

Intelligence officials in France warned U.S. State Department officials in 2015 that communist China planned to cease its collaboration agreement at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, according to a former State Department COVID-19 investigator.

Former State Department official David Asher indicated to the Daily Caller that the U.S. government was given preliminary information regarding China’s move to stop working with France at the lab. In 2004, France and China launched the project, which continual evidence indicates could be the originating area of COVID-19.

Asher said France was formally “kicked out” of the lab in 2017, which resulted in foreign officials contacting the U.S. to let officials know. In January 2021, prior to the Biden administration assuming office, the State Department alleged that the lab had been used by China military research for classified research since at least 2017.

“The Chinese basically sucked State into its honey pot operation to gain access to U.S. technology, knowledge, and material support. Classic. Just as they have done in every sector,” the investigator said.

Still, the U.S. lent a major hand to the lab. According to The U.S. Agency for International Development, it funneled $1.1 million to EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S. non-profit, from October 2019 to May 2019 for a sub-agreement signed with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency was a subcontractor of the lab and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sent $600,000 in grants to the Wuhan lab from 2014 to 2019.

A 2018 State Department cable outlined how France determined the lab would be an accessible and transparent operation, but estimation does not coincide with China’s recent announcement it will not permit the World Health Organization (WHO) to investigate the lab. The country also prohibited WHO from gaining access to documentation and records being held at the lab.

French officials were in support of working with China, and yet some French defense experts were skeptical, as reported by Le Figaro, a newspaper in France. France put aside a whopping $1 million euros every year for five years to give to the lab, then-French Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said at a 2017 ceremony. Scientists in the country even trained Chinese workers.

While the plan was for France to supervise, Le Figaro reported that China took over the lab and stopped collaborating. However, French workers...

Morning Mistress

The 90 Miles Mystery Video: Nyctophilia Edition #727

Before You Click On The "Read More" Link, 

Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.

If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.  

Please Leave Silently Into The Night......

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #1427

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside? 

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific, 

from the beautiful to the repugnant, 

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed, 

you could be inspired, you could be appalled. 

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended. 

You have been warned.

Hot Pick Of The Late Night

Girls With Guns

Blogs With Rule 5 Links

The Other McCain has: Rule 5 Sunday: Bunny Girl Senpai

Proof Positive has: Best Of Web Link Around

The Woodsterman has: Rule 5 Woodsterman Style

EBL has: Rule 5 And FMJRA

The Right Way has: Rule 5 Saturday LinkORama

The Pirate's Cove has: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

What Is The Difference Between Covid And The Flu?

Why Did We Destroy The World Economy, And Create Despair And Death?

Do Employers Have The Right To Violate HIPAA Medical Privacy Laws?

 

How H.R. 4 Would Let Leftist Extremists At The DOJ Control The Entire Nation’s Elections

Forcing states to run election rules by the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division is like giving that power to the Democratic National Committee.

Why are Democrats in Congress staging a series of show hearings to generate support for H.R. 4, “The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act”? Because, they claim, there is a wave of “voter suppression” going on across the country.

That is nothing more than a political fabrication. Requiring voters to show ID to authenticate their identity, or trying to ensure voter registration rolls are accurate and up-to-date, are not “voter suppression” and don’t prevent any eligible individual from registering and voting.

H.R. 4 isn’t just unnecessary and unjustified. It’s a dangerous bill that would give the partisan bureaucrats of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department administrative veto powers over states’ changes to election procedures.

As Cleta Mitchell noted in The Federalist earlier this month, H.R. 4 is “even more insidious” than its cousin, H.R. 1, precisely because “it would enable the vastly well-funded Democrat ‘voting rights’ apparatus to control American elections.” This control would extend over states’ election integrity measures like voter ID (even if passed by ballot referenda approved by all of the voters of a state).

These left-wing ideologues are hostile to the equal, non-partisan enforcement of federal voting rights laws. They are a threat to each state’s constitutional power to control its own election procedures and have repeatedly exhibited their biased attitudes over the course of decades.

DOJ’s Long History of Partisanship

This blatant bias was perhaps best captured in 1994 in Johnson v. Miller, where a federal court issued a scathing opinion charging that “the considerable influence of ACLU advocacy on the voting rights decisions of the United States attorney general is an embarrassment.” The judge was “surprised” that DOJ “was so blind to this impropriety, especially in a role as sensitive as that of preserving the fundamental right to vote.”

In 2013, the inspector general of the Justice Department issued a report titled “A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division.” No one who reads that report could possibly endorse the idea of giving these partisans the legal power to decide what the election rules are for each state. Only leftist activists who want to give their DOJ allies the power to dictate election procedures (and gain a political advantage) could pretend it’s a good idea.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) is race-neutral. It protects all voters from discrimination. But that is decidedly not the view of the Voting Section staff. The IG found “relevant evidence” demonstrating the staff “disfavored” cases where victims of discrimination were white. This resulted in their ignoring discrimination against white voters even in the most egregious of circumstances.

For example, the Voting Section failed to take direct action against a Guam law that used ancestry restrictions (like those used in the South to exclude blacks during the Jim Crow era) to prevent white and Asian residents of Guam from being able to register and take part in a plebiscite. It took an expensive private lawsuit to end Guam’s bigoted treatment of its residents, which even the liberal Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found violated the 15th Amendment in Davis v. Guam in 2019.

Abusing DOJ Employees for Doing Their Jobs

In 2005, the Section reviewed Georgia’s voter ID law under the now-expired preclearance provision of the VRA, the same provision H.R. 4 wants to reimplement. The IG found that staff attorneys implied a newly hired attorney who was suspected of favoring Georgia’s voter ID law was a Nazi sympathizer, referring to him as “a hand-picked Vichyite.”

When this attorney recommended that the attorney general preclear the ID law, other members of the review group engaged in a series of “hostile” and “snide” actions. These unprofessional actions included dispersing customized coffee mugs mocking the attorney to staff and secretly accessing the attorney’s intranet work folder and mocking his work product with others under the email cover “lookie what I found.”

Georgia’s voter ID law was subsequently found not to be discriminatory by a federal court in 2009 and has been in force since then, vindicating the harassed staffer.

In 2006, according to the IG, staff members assigned to file a lawsuit under the VRA against black officials in Noxubee County, Mississippi, for discriminating against white voters were subjected to written and verbal abuse from peers. The team leader was called a “Klansman” in official email correspondence. A black intern who requested to join the team was repeatedly taunted as a “token,” and career employees complained to the intern’s mother that her son was acting as a racial “turncoat.”

A federal court in 2007 found that the defendants in Noxubee County had engaged in “blatant” racial discrimination in a case the majority of career staff wanted to ignore. Not only did they want to ignore it, they attempted to intimidate and harass those who...