Thank You To The Asian and Vietnamese-American GOP Members

By Sheila Muehling

Dear Mr. Timothy Schwartz,

In late February of this year after being elected an officer of Maricopa County GOP, I offered to act as Chairman of the Lincoln Day Luncheon. This event has been an annual celebration of the precinct committee men and women who work tirelessly for the Maricopa Republican Party.

By the time, I volunteered to Chair the luncheon, it was already well past the celebration marking President Lincoln’s birthday which was typically when the event was hosted.  To my dismay there were no plans in place by the previous administration nor were there any records or guidelines as to how the event should be organized.

Arizona Asian American Republicans

In the beginning, I was a little apprehensive wondering if the luncheon would be supported by Maricopa County PC’s.  That issue was quickly erased when I received an overwhelming number of emails asking where tickets could be purchased. However, the one email I would like to share with you and the people who share your negative views of the Asian and Vietnamese GOP PC’s was from Farhana Ahmed. Mrs. Ahmed informed me that she would be filling two to three tables of ten at the luncheon and she guaranteed payment of the seats.

Unlike the Asian PC’s, many including PC’s in my own District 23 would not support the luncheon. In one case an officer came to the event claiming he paid for a ticket yet he couldn’t produce anything to show that he did. Another officer of another District wanted a refund because two of his guaranteed seats couldn’t attend and the seats were resold to other people at the door.  His reason was we didn’t have the right to sell the seats twice! The same group of Asian PC’s had four people who couldn’t attend yet never once questioned reselling their seats. They had paid their money and considered it a contribution to the Maricopa GOP who they supported.

I was stunned when I read your posting attacking the recruitment of the Vietnamese Conservative PC’s. Your statement, “They can’t even speak English.” was stunning.  So, I will ask you the same question Mr. Dang asked you in his open letter dated July 12.  Should the people who come to the United States and work to become American Citizens be disqualified as GOP Precinct Committeemen and women because they speak broken English or they need help in navigating the system? Should your hatred for all things Jonathan Lines and the GOP apply to new American citizens who believe in the Conservative principals of the Republican Party? Should those people be purged from the rolls of the GOP?

I for one welcome the Asian community as well as any person who comes to the United States and wants to be a Conservative Republican member.  And I, along with thousands of other GOP activist, welcome you and thank you for your commitment and support of the GOP Party.

Defending the Indefensible

By Debi Vandenboom

I have spent the last fifteen plus years fighting for the cause of life. I have read books and articles from every side of the debate. I’ve watched interviews, documentaries, exposes and undercover investigations. I have spoken with, counseled, and come alongside girls who were pregnant and scared, young mothers trying to find their way, as well as women who deeply regretted their decision to abort. I have spent many hours sitting in legislative proceedings supporting pro-life legislation. And I have diligently prayed for hearts and minds to change.

In all of those years of experience, one of the things which never ceases to amaze me is the depths to which abortion advocates will go to defend the indefensible. They have developed a science out of using carefully crafted talking points, data manipulation and outright lies to defend “women’s health”, aka abortion. I have heard it so often that I can spot the spin within seconds of hearing or reading someone’s words. Abortion advocates fight for the “right” of a woman (or young girl at literally ANY child bearing age) to have access to abortion without notifying her parents if she’s a minor, without informed consent of the procedure or its risks, without meeting the doctor ahead of time, for any reason, at any stage of gestation, using the grisliest procedures, and preferably paid for with taxpayer dollars. If you dare to try to place even the tiniest, most reasonable restriction on abortion, then you clearly must be anti-woman and hate the poor. No exaggeration. I’ve heard it. I’ve seen it. It’s ugly.

But, it doesn’t end there. In order to defend the indefensible, abortion advocates must also take horrific stands on issues that don’t directly relate to women’s access to abortion. One of these is the issue of fetal homicide. This really came to light back in 2003 when Laci Peterson and her unborn son were murdered in California. There was much discussion about whether baby Conner had or had not been born prior to his demise. My question is, why should it matter? Laci Peterson was 8 months pregnant. Whether the baby died in utero, or post birth, he still died. And, his death was clearly, directly connected to his mother’s murder. However, pro-abortion groups like NARAL and NOW advocated to keep Scott Peterson from being charged with two murders. Despite the fact that pro-abortion organizations claim to support the choice of women who carry “wanted” babies, that support only goes so far. They could not risk having such a high profile case bring to light that an unborn baby is in fact alive and can in fact be murdered.

This happens in case after case. Tragically, murder is one of the top causes, sometimes listed as the number one cause, of death for pregnant women. According to WebMd, murder accounts for 20% of the deaths of pregnant women, as compared to 6% of the deaths of nonpregnant women. You might think that pro-abortion groups full of self-proclaimed feminists who supposedly champion women’s rights, would speak out against such atrocities. You would be wrong. If a baby in utero can legally be recognized as a fully alive human being capable of being murdered, it casts a giant shadow on the entire issue of abortion. Therefore, abortion groups are more interested in protecting abortion, and their own profit margin, than they are in actually protecting and advocating for women.

Another area where abortion advocates justify especially reprehensible acts concerns babies who “accidentally” survive an abortion attempt. It happens more often than you might think. When a child survives an abortion procedure at a clinic, he or she may simply be discarded in a bin or left to die on a metal table with no medical attention whatsoever. In Arizona, it has been the law since 1975 for babies who were born alive to receive care, and it has been federal law since the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” of 2002. Yet we continue to hear about babies being left to die with no care at all. For example, recently in Arizona, a baby girl was born alive after an unsuccessful abortion at 22 weeks, and was left to die alone on a steel table with no medical care or assistance. She suffered alone for nearly an hour and a half before finally passing. This is heartbreaking. It only takes a simple Google search to see that this is not an isolated incident. You can find stories across the country of babies surviving abortion.

One would think that signs of life such as a heartbeat, gasps of breath, or umbilical cord pulsation would be enough to cause someone with medical training to jump into action without being forced to do so. Unfortunately it is not. So, at the federal level, legislation was introduced this session which would strengthen protection for abortion survivors. In Arizona, Governor Ducey just signed SB1367 into law which further clarifies the state’s existing born alive law. During and after this bill’s passage, the pro-abortion nonsense abounded in the newspaper, on social media, and in legislative hearings. Among the most incredulous things I personally heard was that it was “inhumane” to provide “intrusive” medical care to a baby who would not survive anyway. Inhumane? As opposed to treating a living baby like discarded medical waste? A baby may be considered too young to survive at a certain gestational age, until one defeats the odds and does survive. I’ve personally met 2 young women who were so tiny and premature at birth that their parents were given no hope of survival. They are now 20 and 21 years old. Life has a tendency to defy all odds. And even if that baby truly cannot survive, she still deserves to be treated as a human being and at least given basic care, rather than being left untreated in a steel medical bin. But, here lies the problem for Planned Parenthood and other radical abortion advocates. Once an abortion has failed and you are dealing with a living breathing infant, then abortion should no longer be relevant. Born alive laws have absolutely nothing to do with abortion access. However, if a baby at 20 weeks, or 22 weeks, is a human being in need of medical care, then what is an in utero fetus at 20 weeks or 22 weeks? In almost every state, including Arizona, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, and in some states even further. A living breathing abortion survivor throws a giant monkey wrench in to the “clump of cells” sales pitch. So again, in order to protect abortion and to protect their bottom line, abortion advocates will defend the truly indefensible. Abortion, at it’s most fundamental level is inexcusable and horrific. We have literally made an industry out of destroying life at its most vulnerable stages. So, abortion advocates must attempt to justify abortion at its most extreme levels, such as fighting fetal homicide rulings or born alive protections, in order to be able to justify it at all. If they don’t, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down around them. That is why it is important to shine a light on some of the most horrific aspects of the abortion argument. We can’t be squeamish. We must continue to shine light into this darkness, until the last card falls.

Seth Leibsohn: Politicizing and Misunderstanding the Opioid Crisis

By Seth Leibsohn

The nation’s opioid crisis is real and it is serious. As Christopher Caldwell recently pointed out, “those who call the word ‘carnage’ an irresponsible exaggeration are wrong.” And so, too, are those playing politics with the crisis. Even beyond the politicization—or, perhaps, because of it—there is still a great deal of misunderstanding as to what is driving this crisis.

As for the first problem, the politics: Senator Claire McCaskill (D., MO) has announced that she is initiating an investigation of several opioid manufacturers, and is requesting “reams of information” from them. But note the one manufacturer she did not target and from which she did not request information—Mallinckrodt. Mallinckrodt, after all, is headquartered in Missouri, her own state. Odd, that. And it’s not as if Mallinckrodt is a bit player in the manufacture and sales of opioid drugs. Indeed, “it is one of the nation’s largest” producers, responsible for nearly 20 percent of the market share of opioid prescriptions. The companies McCaskill has targeted are responsible for a total market share of 5.25 percent combined. Odd, that. If she were serious about investigating pharmaceutical companies, she most certainly would be investigating the one based in her own home state which also happens to be the one responsible for most opioid sales in America.

But all of this is not even the beginning of the beginning in addressing America’s opioid crisis. For when political leaders like Senator McCaskill are not playing politics with the issue, they are too often misunderstanding it. Some of that is not their fault.

Part of the problem in addressing the opioid crisis is that the terminology can be confusing or misleading. People hear “opioid” or “prescription opioid” or “fentanyl” and begin to lump the problems all together as a crisis driven by legitimately prescribed drugs. No doubt, that is a part of the problem, but it is nowhere near the biggest part of it. Take a look at the best statistics available (taken from the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the CDC):

  • In 2015, there were 33,091 opioid overdose deaths.
  • Heroin deaths constituted 12,990 of those deaths.
  • Synthetic opioids (mostly illegal fentanyl) constitute another 9,580 deaths.

Because opioid deaths usually involve the use of more than one drug, percentages and raw numbers will not neatly add up to 100% or the 33,091 deaths. As the White House Website puts it: “A portion of the overdose deaths involved both illicit opioids and prescription opioids.” But what we can see from the above is that over 68 percent of the problem is from the use of illegal drugs.  Or, as the CDC put it in December of 2016: “[T]he increase in opioid overdose death rates is driven in large part by illicit opioids, like heroin and illicitly manufactured fentanyl, a synthetic opioid.”

As for the prescribed opioids, the majority of overdose deaths from those come from the diversion and illegal distribution of them. As the CDC notes: “Most people who abuse prescription opioids get them for free from a friend or relative.” The people “at highest risk of overdose” “get opioids using their own prescriptions (27 percent), from friends or relatives for free (26 percent), buying from friends or relatives (23 percent), or buying from a drug dealer (15 percent).” Thus, for the population that overdoses from opioid prescriptions, 64 percent abuse them from a diverted or illegal source. In other words, the abuse of opioid prescriptions that leads to overdose deaths involving a patient acquiring a legal prescription and misusing that prescription on himself is less than 30 percent of the prescription problem and constitutes about 15 percent of the overall opioid overdose problem.

This is backed up, as well, by the most recent testimony of the Director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Dr. Debra Houry. Just last month, she testified to Congress stating,

Although prescription opioids were driving the increase in overdose deaths for many years, more recently, the large increase in overdose deaths has been due mainly to increases in heroin and synthetic opioid (other than methadone) overdose deaths, not prescription opioids. Importantly, the available data indicate these increases are largely due to illicitly manufactured fentanyl.

Again, the main driver of our current crisis is the use and abuse of illegal drugs, not legally prescribed drugs. Indeed, there is some common sense to this. Almost anyone who has had a surgical procedure was likely given a legal opioid like fentanyl. As one prominent anesthesiologist recently wrote: “To an anesthesiologist, fentanyl is as familiar as a Philips screwdriver is to a carpenter; it is an indispensable tool in my toolbox. It is the most commonly used painkiller during surgery. If you’ve had surgery, it is more likely than not that you have had fentanyl.” And yet the vast majority of people who have had surgical procedures do not have substance abuse or opioid abuse problems.

Yes, there is a popular reverse gateway theory regarding heroin abuse—i.e., that high percentages of heroin users started by abusing prescription opioid drugs. But that is misleading and, indeed, looks at the problem from the wrong direction.

As Dr. Robert DuPont from the Institute for Behavior and Health has put it:

[W]hile 80% of heroin users used a prescription opioid before they first used heroin, the vast majority, over 96%, of people who have used a prescription opioid non-medically [i.e., illegally] have not transitioned to using heroin.  Five years after the initial nonmedical use of a prescription opioid, only 3.6% ever used any heroin.  Among prescription opiate users, the people most vulnerable to switching to heroin are those who are also abusers of other drugs including alcohol.

In other words, the vast majority of prescription opioid patients do not transition to the use of an illegal drug like heroin.

Other data bear this out, as well. For example, according to an important article in the January 2016 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, it was found that “[A]lthough the majority of current heroin users report having used prescription opioids non-medically before they initiated heroin use, heroin use among people who use prescription opioids for non-medical reasons is rare, and the transition to heroin use appears to occur at a low rate.”

The numbers and factors detailed here are not meant to diminish or emphasize any serious or particular effort to address the variety of opioid issues contributing to the present crisis but, rather, to detail the full picture of the problem in sharp relief. Playing politics with this crisis will get us nowhere and waste a lot of time, energy, and resources. Public confusion about what is leading the epidemic and behind the majority of cases driving the crisis is another problem altogether, made worse by playing politics with it. It is time, past time, to get serious about this issue and take it on in a serious manner.

There are a great many efforts aimed at dealing with pill mills and irresponsible and rogue sales of prescription opioids. That is all to the good. But those efforts will not solve the problem or even get to the roots of the largest parts of it. A responsible and successful prevention campaign is needed and must be combined with serious drug education policies and messages along with a greater border and law enforcement effort. For concerned Americans, first and foremost, it is our duty to become educated about the issue.

Seth Leibsohn is a Contributing Editor to American Greatness and is the host of The Seth & Chris Show, heard nightly on 960am/KKNT in Phoenix. You can connect with Seth on Twitter: @SethLeibsohn

Conservative (once again) objects of curiosity in the New York Times

The Times is trying, bless them, to help readers grasp what motivates these curious creatures called ‘conservatives.’

This one is an earnest stab at explaining the Trumpists without explicitly declaring them unworthy. But, as always in the New York Times, the writer can’t let loose of the exotic-goldfish perspective. And she can’t resist making it clear — like a kid dancing with sparklers — that no matter how hard she works to make it appear she’s being fair to these sods, they’re still sods. And she wants you to know she knows it.

I believe the term is “othering.”

The piece is by Times contributor Marin Cogin, who writes an “On Campus” column that on Sunday examined some of Donald Trump’s odd-duck collection in the White House from the perspective of their days on college campuses.

“How Liberal Colleges Breed Conservative Firebrands” is one of those patronizing head-patters that seeks to illustrate the exotics while making it clear that there’s none of that empathy-stuff going on here.

We are in an age of pay-back time on college campuses. A generation of history-civics-economics education avoidance is returning the inevitable dividend. Today, it’s pampered Middlebury that’s in the news as a First Amendment wasteland, where braying about “flawed notions of ‘free speech'” being afforded to ‘racists’ marks you as a righteous rebel. Meanwhile, the contempt for anything conservatives hold dear is widespread. And few budding socialists on campus are shy about expressing it.

Cogin is writing to and for them.

Aren’t campus political contrarians all underdogs? Aren’t they idealistic and committed? Isn’t the very idea of being “anti-establishment” a good thing? I think you know the exception to these rules.

Conservative students on campus don’t raise consciousness. They “provoke.” Indeed, as Cogin identifies the initial subject of her story — Trump senior policy adviser Stephen “young Gargamel” Miller, a product of progressive Santa Monica, Calif., and Duke University — conservatives on campus are not just provocateurs. They are “contrarian-provocateurs.” They provoke by not agreeing with you, the devils.

All traits that are admirable in the comfortable mobs of young leftists are hostile and needling in not-liberal students (those Libertarians, notes another Times writer, are just as tedious).

Miller, as the writer observes, is “an aggressive self-promoter.” And a “bomb thrower.” (Which makes one wonder: Has any NYT piece ever identified a real bomb-thrower as a “bomb-thrower?”)

It’s not a bad feature on fly-over people and their ways. But, oh, the insufferable virtue-signaling. If you wish to honestly profile someone who you know most of your readers already hate, do you really have to quote what David Letterman (“creepy”) and Stephen Colbert (that “young Gargamel” zinger) think of the guy?

We do already know that, you know.

East Valley Faith Leaders Endorse Christine Jones

Christine Jones for Congress

(Gilbert, AZ) – Today, East Valley Pastors Tom Shrader, Gary Kinnaman, and Kevin Hartke all endorsed Christine Jones in her bid for Congress. Jones, a technology and business leader, has attended church in Chandler for nearly 20 years and has been an active and supporting member of the faith community in Arizona.

Tom Shrader, founding pastor at Redemption Church, said of his endorsement, “Christine is a proven, innovative business leader. Now she is ready to bring that visionary approach to public service. She will be a breath of fresh air in the stale world of Washington politics.”

Reverend Dr. Gary D. Kinnaman, former Senior Pastor at Word of Grace Church in Mesa, and now Pastor-at-large around the community, stated, “I’m pleased to support my friend Christine Jones for Congress. She is highly competent, unwaveringly honorable, and cares deeply about our state and its people. Ms. Jones has a wide range of experience in business, law, and non-profit leadership. She is active in her local church, too. Can you possibly ask for more in a candidate?”

Kevin Hartke, Senior Pastor at Trinity Christian Fellowship, said of his support for Jones, “Christine Jones has deep ties to our community and she understands our needs and frustrations. I know she will represent the district, the East Valley and Arizona well. I’m endorsing Christine because she brings a set of fresh eyes to problems that are not being solved or resolved.”

Jones, commenting on the endorsements said, “I am humbled to be supported by these great men. I admire each of them and their contributions to the East Valley. They have given their hearts and talents as forces for faith and goodness in our community. With their support, I hope to continue to build momentum throughout the coming weeks. This campaign is about bringing a business leader and outsider to represent CD-05 in Congress.”

Debbie Moak & Seth Leibsohn Discuss Campaign for Responsible Drug Policy

Debbie Moak and Seth Leibsohn discuss the adverse effects of legalizing Marijuana for recreational use in Arizona. Both Debbie and Seth appeared on Newsmaker Sunday with John Hook.

Here is the video:

Meet Controversial Street Artist ‘SABO’ At Phoenix Art Show

Phoenix- In a year marked by upheaval, Lotus Contemporary Art, a gallery at 511 E. Roosevelt, presents a rare opportunity to view an exclusive collection of controversial political artwork. Organizers say that in a pivotal election year, political art is highly collectible, and they want to level the field in a liberal leaning industry.

Billed as “Provocative Art 2016”, the public is invited to the show’s opening reception with the artists on Friday, April 22, at 6 PM- 10PM, with an additional showing on Saturday, April 23, from Noon to 3PM.

Richard Bledsoe, a Remodernist painter, writer, and curator who lives in Phoenix, is one of the participating artists. [pullquote align=”left” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]“The establishment art world tends to cater exclusively to politically correct elitists. This is a beautiful show that expresses a view of the culture people typically don’t get to experience.”[/pullquote]

Featuring original fine art by Marc Stolfi, Taylor Overby, Tanya Slate, Sharon Mcgovern, Richard Bledsoe, Denise Fleisch, and Floyd Alsbach, to the often controversial editorial caricature of Roman Genn (National Review), two-time Pulitzer winning cartoonist Michael P. Ramirez, and provocateur street artist SABO, the show covers a wide range of center-right political philosophy.

From the delicate “Ballerina Feet” by Sharon McGovern to hard edged, controversial editorial work, organizers say that art lovers can enjoy the beauty and humor of the political art world, as well as talk to artists who refuse to conform to today’s political norms.

“Most of the work at art shows expresses only one side of the spectrum,” said Melissa Dawdy, one of the event’s organizers, “ It’s clear there is a demand for high quality art from the right as well, and Phoenix is a terrific city for a premiere.”

Dawdy says that artists report show invitations are often withdrawn if they reveal any political conservatism. “The establishment ‘culture’ is very punishing to non-conformists. In the creative field there should be room for everyone’s voice.”

Why call the show “provocative”?

“The pendulum,” says Dawdy, “swings back; ‘Piss Christ’ used to be shocking, but what provokes interest today is artwork that that expresses freedom within the context of Western Civilization. [pullquote align=”full” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Artists are planting a flag in the sand, saying “Art is not about conforming to a political view.”[/pullquote]

http://www.provocativeart2016.com

https://sites.google.com/site/improbableart/richardbledsoe

http://www.romangenn.com

http://www.michaelpramirez.com

http://unsavoryagents.com/

Dwain Returns with a Tribute to Donald Trump

Heeee’s back!

Our friend Dwain, from Mullets Over America, brings us his latest creation “Make America Great Again” ’bout the general awesomeness of Donald J Trump.

Special thanks to Public Integrity Alliance and Mr Citrus Valley for creating this ‘lil beauty.

Statement from Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy leadership on defeat of Ohio Issue 3

PHOENIX (November 3) –– In the wake of tonight’s defeat of Issue 3 in Ohio — the ballot initiative seeking to legalize recreational marijuana — Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy released the below statements from its chair, Seth Leibsohn, and vice chair, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk.

“By defeating marijuana legalization at the ballot, the citizens of Ohio have made a smart choice in the name of public health and the cause of protecting children,” Leibsohn said. “As the marijuana movement seeks to try to legalize marijuana in Arizona, what Ohio—a true bellwether state—has shown is that marijuana legalization is not, in fact, inevitable.  The more people look at the new and more powerful strains of marijuana, the attempted creations of legalized monopolies to sell marijuana, the damage done to children accidentally ingesting marijuana edibles, the more people are turning away from making these newly dangerous substances more available. Legality is the mother of availability and availability is the midwife of use, especially childhood use. There is no good reason to make dangerous substances more available and Ohio helped show that to the rest of the country.”

“What Ohio has shown tonight is that when people get all the facts about today’s marijuana, they see a disturbing cascade of concerns—from higher potencies than we once knew to greater and greater damage done to the teen and adolescent brain,” Polk said. “Knowing all the facts and science about today’s marijuana, including that one in three users will have a clinical disorder, it is clear that legalization represents a tremendous problem for not only law enforcement and health agencies, but education and growth outcomes for our children. Turning away from the siren song of legalizing marijuana is not only smart but responsible, and we thank the people of Ohio for their strong dose of common sense.”

About ARDP:
The Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy PAC was formed to actively oppose any initiative that would legalize the recreational use of the drug marijuana in the state of Arizona. Visit www.arizonansforresponsibledrugpolicy.org for more information.

Poll: Hope and Change? The Future of America…

As we move into the next election cycle, what are your thoughts and feelings about the “health” of the Republic?