It's not just Biden. American companies spend all of their time trying to appease a murderous Communist dictatorship over claims that it has the right to take over another country.


	First up, <a href="https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/05/apple_warns_suppliers_in_taiwan/">obviously Apple</a>, a company that relies on Chinese contractors to produce garbage products that are then oversold at vastly inflated prices&nbsp;to Americans.

<blockquote>
	
		Apple, which celebrates its self-professed commitment to free expression and human rights, has reportedly told its suppliers in Taiwan to label their components so they describe Taiwan as a province of the People's Republic of China (PRC).

	
		According to Japanese financial publication Nikkei, Apple on Friday&nbsp;warned its suppliers&nbsp;that China has ramped up enforcement of a long-standing import rule "that Taiwanese-made parts and components must be labeled as being made either in 'Taiwan, China' or 'Chinese Taipei.'"

	
		The Register&nbsp;asked Apple to comment on this report and the iGiant used its free expression to say nothing. Were Apple to respond, it would presumably say something like, "We follow the law in countries where we do business," or "we were only following orders."
</blockquote>


	And then Warren Buffett's <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/snickers-maker-apologises-advert-suggesting-121850682.html">candy corp</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Mars Wrigley, maker of the Snickers candy bar, apologised on Friday for a Snickers product launch which Chinese social media users said suggested that Taiwan was a country.

	
		Videos and pictures showing a Snickers website promoting a limited edition Snickers bar and saying the product was only available in the "countries" of South Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan triggered an outpour of anger on Chinese microblogging platform Weibo on Friday.

	
		Mars Wrigley later published an apology on its Snickers China Weibo account and said the relevant content had been amended.

	
		"Mars Wrigley respects China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity and conducts its business operations in strict compliance with local Chinese laws and regulations," Mars Wrigley added.

	
		However, the social media backlash did not abate as many users were irate that the U.S. company's statement did not say Taiwan was a part of China, a cornerstone of Chinese foreign policy.

	
		"Say it: Taiwan is an inseparable part of China's territory!" read one comment underneath the post on Snickers China Weibo account that received 8,000 likes.
</blockquote>


	You will kowtow. And then we'll rip you off anyway.


	But at least Mars is <a href="https://www.mars.com/news-and-stories/press-releases/mars-accelerates-work-racial-equity">accelerating</a> work on "racial equity" while it's appeasing a murderous dictatorship bent on invading and conquering another nation.


	&nbsp;

US Companies Can't Stop Appeasing Communist China

It's not just Biden. American companies spend all of their time trying to appease a murderous Communist dictatorship over claims that it has the right to take

US Companies Can't Stop Appeasing Communist China

Florida State Attorney Andrew Warren made a written pledge that he wouldn't enforce state laws transgender child sex mutilation and abortion.


	Gov. DeSantis suspended him. Now the Soros DA is <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/fired-florida-attorney-being-punished-laws-not-on-books-yet-2022-8">complaining</a> about the "Orwellian thought police".

<blockquote>
	
		Former Florida State Attorney Andrew Warren who was suspended by Gov. Ron DeSantis last week said he's being punished for laws that are not even on the books yet.&nbsp;

	
		"This is Orwellian Thought Police, where I'm being punished for not enforcing laws that are not even on the books yet," Warren told&nbsp;MSNBC's Katie Phang&nbsp;during a Saturday interview.&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	Warren wrote down his "thoughts". That means they're not thoughts anymore, they're formal pledges by an official to disregard the law.&nbsp;


	The Soros DA doesn't actually seem to have read Orwell, which was about a lefty political machine terrorizing everyone, or understand that an official making a formal pledge to do something is not simply a stray thought.


	But Warren doesn't seem to be clear on<a href="https://nypost.com/2022/08/05/desantis-ousted-da-andrew-warren-insists-hes-still-working-despite-suspension/"> how anything works</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		&nbsp;The Florida state attorney suspended by Gov. Ron DeSantis insisted Friday that he still has a job — but the Republican governor’s office said he can’t even get into his old office.

	
		Andrew Warren, who served as Hillsborough County’s top prosecutor until DeSantis&nbsp;announced his ouster Thursday,&nbsp;insisted to CBS that he was still on the job.

	
		“He does not have the authority to suspend me,”&nbsp;he told the network,&nbsp;adding that “the people elected me to serve in this position and I am going to continue doing it to keep our neighborhoods safe.”

	
		Warren asserted that the move was “unconstitutional” and that he refused to recognize its legitimacy.

	
		Those comments drew a Twitter rebuke from DeSantis spokesperson Christina Pushaw Friday, who said Warren was being “delusional.”
</blockquote>


	It's okay. Warren identifies as still being on the job. As long as he thinks so, it's still okay.

Soros DA, Who Refused to Enforce Laws, Accuses Gov. DeSantis of Policing His "Thoughts"

Florida State Attorney Andrew Warren made a written pledge that he wouldn't enforce state laws transgender child sex mutilation and abortion.


	Gov.

Soros DA, Who Refused to Enforce Laws, Accuses Gov. DeSantis of Policing His "Thoughts"

How did De Blasio stay in office for so long? The media covers up the clownish incompetence and lies of elected officials on their side of the aisle until the whole thing hits a critical mass.


	Take this<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/07/eric-adams-texas-migrants-new-york-00050235"> Politico article </a>which describes, with a straight face, Mayor Eric Adams' clowning.&nbsp;


	The background is that Adams falsely accused Gov. Abbott of Texas of sending buses of illegal aliens to New York City. That wasn't actually happening. But in response to the libel, Abbott decided to send a bus to New York City.


	And Adams showed up to grandstand.

<blockquote>
	
		"Mayor Eric Adams condemned Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday for sending buses of asylum seekers to New York City — some of them against their will.

	
		“This is horrific, when you think about what the governor is doing,” Adams said in an early morning visit to the Port Authority bus terminal, where he greeted a bus transporting arriving migrants.

	
		Adams said migrants were being forced onto buses — even if they wanted to go to destinations other than New York. Some were falsely told they would be taken to their desired destination, only to find themselves bound for New York, he said.

	
		“Some of the families are on the bus that wanted to go to other locations, and they were not allowed to do so. They were forced on the bus,” Adams said. “Our goal is to immediately find out each family’s needs and give them the assistance they want.”
</blockquote>


	Here's Politico, casually mentioning in its own story, that Adams is once again lying, and that his staged reception for the illegal aliens was a farce, without coming out and saying it.

<blockquote>
	
		"Fourteen people were dropped off at the bus station Sunday morning, after three days of travel. Adams said officials expected 40 people to be on the bus, but others appear to have gotten off at other stops along the route."
</blockquote>


	Those illegals who were "forced" on the bus to go "where they don't want to" just got off along the way where they wanted to.


	Since we're in New York City, that reminds me of this Seinfeld scene.

<iframe width="541" height="451" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5s7mF3KM5zQ" title="Kramer - people kept ringing the bell!!" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

<blockquote>
	
		Cosmo Kramer&nbsp;:&nbsp;The bus is outta control. So I grab him by the collar, I take him out of the seat, I get behind the wheel, and now I'm driving the bus.

	
		Jerry&nbsp;:&nbsp;Wow.

	
		George Costanza&nbsp;:&nbsp;You're Batman.

	
		Kramer&nbsp;:&nbsp;Yeah, yeah, I am Batman. Then the mugger, he comes to and he starts choking me. So I'm fighting him off with one hand and I kept driving the bus with the other, ya know. Then I managed to open up the door and I kicked him out the door, ya know, with my foot, ya know, at the next stop.

	
		Jerry&nbsp;:&nbsp;You kept making all the stops?

	
		Kramer&nbsp;:&nbsp;Well, people kept ringing the bell!
</blockquote>


	Unimaginable!

<blockquote>
	
		“It is unimaginable what the governor of Texas has done, when you think about this country, a country that has always been open to those who were fleeing persecution,” Adams said. “We’ve always welcomed them. And this governor is not doing that in Texas. But we are going to set the right tone of being here for these families.”
</blockquote>


	This whole thing started when Adams demanded Biden intervene because of all the illegals showing up in New York City. Adams has only doubled down on his lies while claiming that he now welcomes illegals.

NYC Mayor Claims Texas Forcing Illegals To Go To New York, Only to Find Illegals Got Off At Other Stops

How did De Blasio stay in office for so long? The media covers up the clownish incompetence and lies of elected officials on their side of the aisle until the

NYC Mayor Claims Texas Forcing Illegals To Go To New York, Only to Find Illegals Got Off At Other Stops

Like a psycho stalker ex, the media has been churning out a series of whiny articles complaining that they've been blocked by Republicans on social media.


	The latest <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/08/07/1115949410/republicans-have-long-feuded-with-the-mainstream-media-now-many-are-shutting-the">comes from</a> NPR's Danielle Kurtzleben, "Republicans have long feuded with the mainstream media. Now many are shutting them out".


	Also, earlier by Danielle, "Republicans confront (or sidestep) abuse accusations against midterm candidates".


	The good news is that Republicans are going Amish on the media. It's belated, but Republicans are discovering that there's absolutely no value to cooperating with media outlets that their own voters are shutting out and that exist for no purpose except elevating the Left and attacking conservatives.

<blockquote>
	
		"Long story short: I heard back from the Democrats but not the Republicans. Phone calls, emails, Facebook messages – I didn't hear back from anyone. The top Republican governor candidates posted no events, though their social media showed they were out, talking to voters.

	
		And so, when I happened to catch the top two GOP governor candidates walking in an Oconomowoc Fourth of July parade, I ran to the end of the route to catch them.

	
		I found former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch greeting supporters. A staffer who then stepped between us told me they knew I had been reaching out and that I should contact a communications staffer, to whom I had already reached out. He would get back to me, she assured me.

	
		He did not. And a day later, at a publicly-advertised meet-and-greet for governor candidate Kevin Nicholson, a staffer told me I wouldn't be allowed to even get tape of Nicholson greeting attendees.

	
		The phenomenon is impossible to quantify, but many Republican candidates are showing that they don't want – or need – to get their messages out via legacy media outlets. "
</blockquote>


	They can't, for the most part, "get out their message" via the media.


	The media sets its agenda items that it wants to ask questions about and these are usually...


	1. Lefty agenda items, racism, global warming, inequity,&nbsp;


	2. Attacks on the Republican candidates, e.g. have you stopped beating your wife


	Republican candidates have to navigate all that and hope they can get in two seconds with their agenda item, e.g. I'm going to cut taxes


	Many are realizing that it's a pointless waste of their time and that collaborating with the media gets you nowhere and is actually more damaging than ignoring it.


	Whose fault is it?&nbsp;


	The media loudly denies that it's biased, but if so, why is it Republicans who are the ones blocking access, not Democrats? If the media is evenhanded, why would one party, not the other, want to exit the game?

<blockquote>
	
		"You can't trust those venues" is a long-standing argument from the Republican side — that legacy media has a liberal bias.

	
		Trust numbers reflect this belief — just 11% of Republicans trust the mass media, compared to nearly 7 in 10 Democrats,&nbsp;according to Gallup.

	
		The question of liberal bias isn't something we can settle in a small section of one article, and coming from a legacy media outlet, a claim that we aim to be unbiased would inevitably come off to some as...well...biased.

	
		But it is also nevertheless true that claims of liberal bias are themselves a political tactic.
</blockquote>


	So is the bias itself and so is dismissing the bias as a political tactic.

<blockquote>
	
		All of this may come off as a lament that some GOP candidates are making reporters' lives harder. That is certainly the read of people like Ron DeSantis' spokesperson when she tells reporters to "cry about it."

	
		But as more candidates have ostensibly public events and don't allow people to tell the public what is said at those events, it raises concerns about accountability.
</blockquote>


	Accountability means the media as a referee. Nobody elected the media to that&nbsp;position and nobody would trust a referee who spends 90% of her time cheering for the Yankees, makes biased calls at every game, and then says that refusing to let her call the game reflects opposition to accountability.


	Elected officials are accountable to voters. If the media wants to claim that it represents the voters, it had better represent the spectrum of voters rather than just the 11% of leftists.


	The media chose to represent a leftist fringe. Those are the only candidates it should expect reliable access to.

Media Not Sure How to Handle Being Shut Out by Republicans

Like a psycho stalker ex, the media has been churning out a series of whiny articles complaining that they've been blocked by Republicans on social media

Media Not Sure How to Handle Being Shut Out by Republicans

In a triumph for the Senate Dems, who remained unified, the Senate passed a massive package to tax and audit the middle class, hugely expanding the IRS and killing domestic manufacturing... to subsidize Tesla owners.


	Electric cars are apparently not subsidized enough and so, with the collaboration of Manchin and Sinema, who managed to carve out exemptions and special privileges for their donors, the massive plan to tax and audit the middle class went through.


	The media spun this plan to tax and audit the middle class as "finally doing something about the climate".


	If taxing the middle class and increasing inflation more can't save the planet... I don't know what will.&nbsp;

Kamala, Senate Dems Pass Middle Class Tax Hike to Subsidize Tesla Owners

In a triumph for the Senate Dems, who remained unified, the Senate passed a massive package to tax and audit the middle class, hugely expanding the IRS and

Kamala, Senate Dems Pass Middle Class Tax Hike to Subsidize Tesla Owners

Out of Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century progressive reforms came the collectivist notion that disease could be eradicated with government-compelled one size fits all treatments without need for reliance on individual doctor-patient relationships. &nbsp;Physicians would become mere functionaries of the public health establishment. &nbsp;That collectivist conception gave rise to what is an oxymoron, “public health.” &nbsp;Truth be told, there is no such thing as “public health;” only individuals are diagnosable, and each has a unique physiological state for which a tailored treatment is almost always the best.&nbsp;


	The notion of a discernible “public health” drove creation of public health bureaucracies, like FDA, CDC, and HHS, together with state health bureaucracies, like the medical and health specialty licensing boards. &nbsp;Over the years, ever more voluminous public health directives have de-emphasized and undermined individual freedom of choice in health care, exercise of individual professional judgment, and the doctor-patient relationship.


	Today, physicians are routinely vexed when the treatment they believe best based on education, experience, and training is effectively disallowed by proxies for government overseers. &nbsp;It is those proxies’ treatment preferences that take precedence, deviation from them causes physicians to suffer an array of costly sanctions from Medicare and Medical Boards. &nbsp;For example, a physician who believes it in the best interests of a COVID-19 patient to treat him or her with hydroxycholoroquine or ivermectin will today be disabused of that exercise of professional discretion by Medicare providers and state licensing boards, despite convincing evidence that the treatments are effective in reducing symptoms and preventing hospitalization and death in patients who have recently contracted the illness. &nbsp;Not following the course set by the public health regime for COVID-19 (i.e., not insisting on COVID-19 vaccination and on treatment with select, approved agents like Paxlovid) invites the rebuke of peers and suspension or revocation of medical licenses.


	The more government proceeds in favor of “public health,” the less assurance we have of best treatment. &nbsp;As government increasingly emphasizes “public health,” it deemphasizes and disempowers individual choice in health care and the exercise of independent professional judgment. &nbsp;That is a lesson Americans may have learned from the government COVID-19 mandates. &nbsp;The lesson applies equally to all other “public health” mandates, such as school vaccine schedules.


	Vaccination operates on the false premise that everyone will benefit from injections variously designed to alter body chemistry to evoke an immune response. &nbsp;But we know from history that some will not benefit at all and, indeed, some will suffer injury, severe injury or death following vaccination. &nbsp;Ought not we be encouraging medical science and practitioners to identify all individual characteristics that make vaccines, like the COVID vaccine, inadvisable for patients? &nbsp;Doesn’t the public health establishment owe each patient full information on the risks he or she may face from vaccination? &nbsp;But disclosure of full adverse event information would tend to prove the lie of “public health” and would expose the reality that individual freedom of choice is unfairly sacrificed by public health regimes. &nbsp;


	Instead, government advocates of public health emphasize in typical progressive fashion a vital need for universality of treatment, deeming harms inflicted on individuals the price that must be paid for achievement of an amorphous and – particularly in the case of COVID -- very elusive “public good.” &nbsp;Consequently, some states, like California, have eliminated all manner of exemptions from vaccination mandates, even medical exemptions. &nbsp;The stark reality, as many have realized from the COVID jab, is that people respond differently to vaccines depending on their unique physiology. &nbsp;For some, a vaccine may appear to carry with it benefit and for others a vaccine may be more likely to induce reactions, even death. &nbsp;In every case, “public health” mandates deny the individual the freedom to choose even when life is at stake, overruling that freedom with compulsion that supplants intelligent, well-reasoned medical dissent.


	From the outset, the idea of “public health” has been a fiction, a costly one. &nbsp;Each of us differs in our relative health and susceptibility to disease and treatment. &nbsp;There is no blanket treatment capable of avoiding injury in every person. &nbsp;Without knowing the precise physiological state and medical history of a particular patient, government through mass treatment necessarily include those apt to experience adverse reactions. &nbsp;So it is that each year federal and state governments condone harm to children and adults who are variously required to be vaccinated against their will, oftentimes overruling sound medical grounds indispensable to patient health.


	Moreover, the public health establishment rejects the need for any serious consideration of unique biological differences that make particular treatments of greater risk to particular individuals. &nbsp;Indeed, while the law ordinarily requires health care practitioners to advise patients of potential adverse drug effects, in the ordinary course physicians under pressure from public health authorities rarely if ever disclose risks before administering or prescribing drugs. &nbsp;Informed consent is largely non-existent in medicine delivered under the aegis of public health. &nbsp;That is not a coincidence. &nbsp;For example, many who were given the COVID-19 jab when it was only allowed for experimental use were never apprised of any, let alone all known, potential risks. &nbsp;Rather, people were most often vaccinated with little or no risk awareness. &nbsp;To the contrary, they were assured that the vaccines were “safe,” an inherently deceptive claim for any drug.


	Perhaps the greatest harm caused by “public health” is the destruction of meaningful doctor-patient relationships. &nbsp;Patients expect their physicians to perform careful diagnoses and select treatments tailored to the patient’s specific conditions. &nbsp;Few realize that there is almost always an invisible third person in the room that can veto physician preferences (the government in the form of agents for health insurers or medical boards). &nbsp;Every moment of every day physicians nationwide second guess their own judgments to ensure conformity with government preferences. &nbsp;A person recovering from a heart attack that a physician believes might peculiarly benefit from a longer period of physical therapy and rehabilitation than is customary may nevertheless avoid that recommendation in favor of the government preferred “standard of care.” &nbsp;A particular person who would best be treated with a drug other than that commonly prescribed for the general class of ailment diagnosed may be denied the best drug because it might appear as an “outlier” and open the physician or hospital to a Medicare or Medical Board audit. &nbsp;A patient for whom a physician believes it more beneficial and less costly to be treated with a dietary supplement, e.g., fish oil, or an off-patent drug, e.g., colchicine, may nevertheless prescribe a drug with greater risk of harmful side-effects because the more harmful drug, not the supplement, is favored by the bureaucrats. &nbsp;Virtually nothing physicians do today in the diagnosis and treatment of disease proceeds independent of a Kafkaesque system of bureaucratic second-guessing, a system that makes itself, rather than the patient, the most important factor for every physician who values his or her medical practice.


	There is, of course, a far better alternative to the public health system now dominant in the United States, one which celebrates and protects individual patient freedom of choice; encourages physicians to exercise their professional judgment calculated to provide the best possible care to each patient; and removes government second-guessing such that physicians remain patient-centric, not government-centric, in patient care. &nbsp;That is a free market in health care. &nbsp;Imagine if instead of unleashing big government control over treatment and censorship over dialog about COVID-19, we had instead entrusted physicians to deal with each patient’s condition and invited all manner of scientific inquiry, publication, and debate to flourish about treatments. &nbsp;Undoubtedly, we would have today a plethora of treatment options available and in use and reliance on means tailored to each patient’s needs. &nbsp;In short, we would be healthier not because of “public health” but in spite of it.


	Until we return to a free market in health care wherein patients are given the freedom to choose what they think best, we will continue to be robbed of superior care, of innovations in medicine and medical practice, and of discoverable cures in favor of politically imposed orthodoxies. &nbsp;In medicine, as in the marketplace in general, Ronald Reagan was right: "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."


	Reprinted From <a href="https://townhall.com/">Townhall.</a>

There is No Such Thing as 'Public Health'

Out of Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century progressive reforms came the collectivist notion that disease could be eradicated with government-compelled one size

Frontpage Mag

jonathon emord

There is No Such Thing as 'Public Health'

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

US Companies Can't Stop Appeasing Communist China

Soros DA, Who Refused to Enforce Laws, Accuses Gov. DeSantis of Policing His "Thoughts"

NYC Mayor Claims Texas Forcing Illegals To Go To New York, Only to Find Illegals Got Off At Other Stops

Media Not Sure How to Handle Being Shut Out by Republicans

Kamala, Senate Dems Pass Middle Class Tax Hike to Subsidize Tesla Owners

Events