Blog

a man riding a skateboard down a sidewalk

In Oregon politics, where rhetoric often overshadows substance, the 2026 U.S. Senate race presents a clear choice for Republican voters in the primary: Russ McAlmond, a dedicated U.S. Marine veteran, stands out as the only candidate with military service among those vying for the nomination. While other contenders bring their own backgrounds, McAlmond's service as a Marine, combined with his conservative values and proven track record in business and family life, positions him as a true patriot ready to bring real-world experience to Washington, D.C.Russ McAlmond's military record is a testament to his commitment to the nation and to Oregon. He joined the Marines in downtown Portland at the tender age of 18. He served three years on active duty in the United States Marine Corps, including a grueling 15-month overseas deployment, before receiving an honorable discharge. He was trained in combat infantry (0311) and was a weapons instructor for other Marines.&nbsp;This experience defines patriotism not as mere words, but as action—putting one's life on the line for the American founding values of individual freedom.&nbsp;His conservative principles, rooted in ethical individualism and a belief in judging people as unique individuals rather than by group identities, further solidify his status as a patriot. In an era where division runs rampant, McAlmond's philosophy promotes equality for all, echoing the foundational American ideals of liberty and personal responsibility.The value of electing a veteran like McAlmond to the U.S. Senate cannot be overstated, particularly when it comes to national security, foreign policy, and veterans' affairs. Having served with boots on the ground, he possesses an intimate understanding of what it means to be deployed overseas as an American service member—facing the uncertainties of foreign lands, the rigors of duty, and the sacrifices required to protect our interests abroad. This firsthand knowledge is invaluable in the Senate, where decisions on military engagements, international alliances, and support for troops are made daily. A senator with military experience can advocate more effectively for policies that honor our service members, ensure proper funding for defense, and address the needs of veterans returning home. McAlmond's insights would bring authenticity to debates on issues like border security and global threats, drawing from the discipline and resilience forged in the Marines.Despite facing disabilities stemming from his service, McAlmond has not let these challenges define or limit him. Instead, he channeled his determination into a thriving business career as a certified financial planner, building Evergreen Capital Management from the ground up and earning advanced degrees including an MBA, a Master of Science in Financial Services, and a Leadership Certificate from Harvard University. He founded the Center for Human Equality, advocating for true individualism, and authored the book Ethical Individualism to promote these ideas. On a personal level, he has raised a wonderful family as a husband and father of three, demonstrating the balance of duty, perseverance, and love that resonates with Oregon families. His story is one of triumph over adversity, making him a relatable and inspiring figure for constituents across the state.Now, McAlmond seeks to extend his service to Oregon by challenging incumbent Democrat Jeff Merkley, who has never served in the military and lacks the veteran's perspective that McAlmond brings. Merkley's tenure has been marked by controversial statements, including likening federal immigration enforcement actions—such as those by ICE—to fascism, claiming they involve "masked federal agents terrorizing our communities." Such rhetoric highlights a tendency to broadly categorize and judge groups of people, which contrasts sharply with McAlmond's commitment to ethical individualism and maturity in discourse. Oregon deserves a senator who unites rather than divides, who understands the complexities of law enforcement and national security without resorting to inflammatory labels. McAlmond positions himself as a common-sense Republican, rejecting extremism from both sides and focusing on representing the majority of Oregonians. As the only veteran in the Republican primary, Russ McAlmond deserves the support of Oregon voters who value service, integrity, and experience. His journey from Marine to successful entrepreneur and family man equips him uniquely to defeat Merkley in the general election and restore principled leadership to the Senate. In a time when our nation faces profound challenges, electing a proven patriot like McAlmond isn't just an option—it's a necessity for Oregon's future.

The Only Veteran Patriot Running for the US Senate

man opening his arms wide open on snow covered cliff with view of mountains during daytime

Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and a prominent conservative activist, dedicated his life to promoting what he saw as the core American value of "freedom." His message was not merely rhetorical but a call to action, emphasizing individual rights over collective mandates. Tragically, Kirk was assassinated on September 10, 2025, during a campus debate at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, where he was fatally shot by Tyler James Robinson, a 22-year-old leftist now facing aggravated murder charges. This act of violence underscored the very tensions Kirk sought to address: the clash between individual freedom and what he viewed as oppressive leftist ideologies dominating American higher education. Kirk spoke at universities precisely because he believed they had become bastions of collectivism, teaching students to prioritize group identities and the "collective good" over the unalienable rights of the individual. This article explores the true essence of Kirk's "Freedom" message, rooted in America's founding principles, and why he confronted these institutions head-on, ultimately paying the ultimate price for advocating individual liberty in an era of enforced conformity by universities and some state governments.&nbsp;At its core, Charlie Kirk's "Freedom" message was a staunch defense of individual sovereignty, drawing directly from the Declaration of Independence's assertion that all people are endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Kirk, through TPUSA—which he co-founded in 2012 and grew to over 2,000 chapters by 2025—promoted limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility as the antidotes to what he saw as authoritarian collectivism. Unlike collective freedoms that subordinate the individual to the group—often justified under banners like social justice or equity—Kirk's vision emphasized that true freedom is inherent to every person, regardless of background. He argued that America was exceptional because it rejected the class hierarchies of Europe, where rights were doled out by monarchs or aristocracies. Instead, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights enshrined protections for the individual: the right to speak freely without fear of censorship, the right to bear arms for self-defense, the right to practice religion without state interference, and the right to economic autonomy, allowing citizens to spend their earnings as they see fit rather than surrendering them to expansive government programs. Kirk's campus tours, such as the 2024 "You're Being Brainwashed" series that garnered billions of social media views, were platforms to articulate this, debating students and challenging what he called "anti-American ideas" like socialism and identity politics. This message stood in stark opposition to the leftist ideologies Kirk believed permeated American universities, which he accused of fostering oppression through class-based divisions. In Kirk's view, modern academia promoted a system where individuals are categorized into oppressed and oppressor groups—based on race, gender, sexuality, or other identities—and freedoms are allocated accordingly for the supposed "collective good." For instance, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which Kirk vehemently opposed as anti-white and discriminatory, elevate certain groups while silencing others deemed historically privileged. This creates a hierarchy where, say, progressive voices on issues like transgender rights or racial reparations are amplified, but conservative perspectives are muted or labeled as hate speech. Kirk saw this as a form of authoritarianism, where conformity to leftist dogma is enforced through cancel culture, speech codes, and even administrative punishments. Universities, he argued, no longer teach critical thinking but indoctrinate students into viewing society through a Marxist lens of class struggle, prioritizing collective equity over individual merit. This oppression extends to conservatism itself: leftism, in Kirk's framework, systematically silences right-wing voices, as evidenced by TPUSA's Professor Watchlist, which highlighted alleged biases against conservatives in academia. By speaking at these institutions, Kirk aimed to expose and dismantle this structure, inviting students to "prove him wrong" in open debates and fostering a marketplace of ideas where individual expression triumphs over group-enforced silence.Kirk's choice to engage directly with universities stemmed from his conviction that they were ground zero for this ideological battle. He founded TPUSA precisely to mobilize conservative youth against what he perceived as leftist dominance on campuses, where ideas and groups who supported them - like Christianity, Judaism, opposition to abortion, individual freedom, and support for gun rights were marginalized. Universities, in his eyes, had abandoned the American ideal of individual freedom for a European-style class system, where rights are conditional on group affiliation. The Founding Fathers, fleeing Old World tyrannies, designed a republic where every citizen's liberties were protected from government overreach—not granted by it. As Kirk often noted, the U.S. was not built on collective classes but on the radical notion that individuals are equal before the law, with freedoms that cannot be voted away or redistributed for societal "balance." His speeches at places like Utah Valley University—where he was murdered for his free speech—were deliberate talks to defend freedom, designed to reclaim these spaces and remind students that true freedom means pursuing happiness on one's own terms, not conforming to a collective agenda that elevates some voices while oppressing others.Central to Kirk's advocacy were specific individual rights that he believed were under assault in academia. Free speech, for Kirk, was an absolute birthright, not a privilege doled out based on political alignment; he opposed campus crackdowns that stifled dissent. The right to self-defense, embodied in the Second Amendment, allowed individuals to choose their means of protection without government mandates. Religious freedom meant practicing faith (or no faith) without state-imposed secularism. Economic liberty was perhaps most personal: the freedom to allocate hard-earned money for family needs rather than funding expansive federal, state, or local bureaucracies through taxes. Universities, however, taught the opposite: a system where individual freedoms are subordinated to group equities, such as affirmative action or wealth redistribution, which Kirk equated to oppression. In this environment, conservatives like him were targeted for silencing, while selected groups enjoyed unchecked expression, creating an imbalance that contradicted America's individualist foundations.Ultimately, Charlie Kirk's assassination highlighted the perils of championing individual freedom in a landscape increasingly tilted toward collectivism. He was murdered not for abstract ideals but for embodying the resistance to authoritarian conformity—the kind that demands silence from conservatives while amplifying leftist narratives. The USA was founded on the principle that rights are inherent to the individual, not contingent on group membership or the collective will. Kirk's message rejected the leftist elevation of classes for the "greater good," viewing it as a path to tyranny that stifles the pursuit of happiness for every American. His legacy endures as a testament to this: individual freedom fosters innovation, diversity of thought, and personal fulfillment, while collective freedom breeds division and control.<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">Russ McAlmond, a US Senate candidate for Oregon and Republican, dedicates his campaign to Charlie Kirk's "Freedom" and his courage to exercise his natural free speech rights at universities that are teaching conformity and collectivism instead of the individual freedom given to all of us from our creation - not government.&nbsp;

Charlie Kirk's "Freedom" Message

American conservatism, at its ideological core, is anchored in the sovereignty of the unique individual human being, drawing from the foundational principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. These documents proclaim that all individuals are created equal, endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rejecting any system where collective identities or classes impose inequalities of intrinsic value. This emphasis on individual dignity over group hierarchies forms the bedrock of a society where personal merit, responsibility, and freedom prevail. However, while these ideals provide a political and moral framework, they can sometimes remain abstract in everyday application. Enter Russell McAlmond's Ethical Individualism Theory (EIT), a secular human relational philosophy that enhances these conservative values by translating them into practical guidelines for human interactions. EIT not only reinforces the primacy of the individual but extends it into a fuller system for fostering trust, respect, and mutual benefit among all Americans—and indeed, all human beings—regardless of status, background, or affiliation. By doing so, it underscores why authentic American conservatism is inherently incompatible with racism or antisemitism, as such prejudices fundamentally violate the moral imperatives of human dignity and equality.The Four Axioms of EIT: Building on Conservative FoundationsEIT is structured around four interlocking axioms that directly amplify the individual-centric ethos of American conservatism, providing a robust ethical scaffold for human relations. These axioms—Infinite and Equal Worth of Every Human Being, Absolute Uniqueness of Each Person, Inviolable Inner Freedom and Moral Agency, and Absolute Personal Responsibility—serve as the philosophical axioms from which EIT derives its relational theorems, ensuring that interactions are grounded in dignity rather than division.The first axiom, the Infinite and Equal Worth of Every Human Being, establishes a "continuous horizontal line of equality" where no individual's value is diminished or elevated based on group membership. This mirrors the conservative ideal of inherent equality under natural law, as articulated in the Declaration, rejecting aristocratic hierarchies or collectivist systems that assign worth through class, race, or ideology. In practical terms, it means approaching every person—whether a neighbor, colleague, or stranger—with the assumption of equal dignity, fostering relationships free from paternalism or subordination. Building on this, the second axiom, the Absolute Uniqueness of Each Person, posits that every human is an irreplaceable "mosaic" of experiences, thoughts, and potentials, not reducible to stereotypes or collective labels. This enhances conservatism's celebration of individual sovereignty by emphasizing that uniqueness is not merely a political right but a relational reality. In a nation like the United States, this axiom encourages curiosity and awe in encounters, transforming potential conflicts into opportunities for discovery and preventing the dehumanization that arises from group-based assumptions.The third axiom, Inviolable Inner Freedom and Moral Agency, affirms that individuals are the sole authors of their destinies, with inner freedoms that cannot be predetermined or erased by external categories. This aligns seamlessly with conservative principles of self-reliance and limited government, where personal agency is paramount. Relationally, it promotes empathy by recognizing that no one's choices are fated by group identity, allowing for genuine forgiveness and growth in interactions.Finally, the fourth axiom, Absolute Personal Responsibility, holds that individuals are accountable only for their own actions, not for collective guilt or virtues imputed by group affiliation. This reinforces conservatism's emphasis on merit and moral accountability, rejecting scapegoating or identity-based blame. Together, these axioms yield EIT's central theorem: any judgment based on group membership is immoral, as it erodes uniqueness, introduces unequal worth, undermines freedom, and evades responsibility. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">By systematizing these ideas, EIT provides a fuller ethical framework that conservative ideals alone might not fully operationalize in daily life.EIT as a Human Relational Philosophy for AllEIT elevates American conservatism's founding values into a comprehensive relational philosophy that is accessible and applicable to all humans, transcending status, faith, or ideology. While conservatism focuses on preserving institutions that protect individual liberty, EIT applies these principles interpersonally, creating "win-win" dynamics through symbiotic ethics—where interactions benefit both parties without sacrifice. Drawing from McAlmond's background in financial advising and ethics (such as "Love Your Neighbor" reinterpreted as universal respect), EIT is secular yet spiritually resonant, making it ideal for America's pluralistic society. In practice, EIT guides Americans in navigating diversity by prioritizing individual encounters over group narratives. For instance, in education, workplaces, or communities, it encourages judging people by character and deeds, not by race, gender, or class—fostering trust and reconciliation amid polarization. This relational approach addresses the potential atomism in pure individualism by embedding conservative values in compassionate, curiosity-driven bonds, ensuring that liberty leads to unity rather than isolation. Globally, EIT's universality extends these benefits to all human beings, promoting a pro-human ethos that counters tribalism and hierarchies worldwide.The Incompatibility of Racism and Antisemitism with True American ConservatismA direct corollary of EIT's integration with conservative values is that true American conservatives cannot espouse racism or antisemitism, as these prejudices flagrantly violate the moral imperatives of human dignity and equality. Racism and antisemitism are quintessential forms of "group judgmentalism," assigning unequal worth, erasing uniqueness, predetermining agency, and imposing collective responsibility based on arbitrary categories like ethnicity or religion. Such views contradict the first axiom by creating hierarchies of value (e.g., deeming one race superior), the second by reducing individuals to stereotypes rather than unique mosaics, the third by denying inner freedom through presumed group traits, and the fourth by enforcing collective guilt (e.g., blaming all Jews for perceived societal ills).American conservatism's rejection of these evils is evident in its historical opposition to collectivist ideologies, from slavery to modern identity politics, aligning with figures like Martin Luther King Jr., who echoed conservative ideals by advocating judgment based on character, not skin color. EIT makes this incompatibility explicit: any conservative who harbors racist or antisemitic views betrays the founding values of individual sovereignty and equality, succumbing instead to the very groupism that conservatism seeks to transcend. Thus, embracing EIT not only purifies conservatism but equips it to combat prejudice through ethical individualism, ensuring a society where dignity prevails over division.In conclusion, Russell McAlmond's Ethical Individualism Theory enriches American conservatism by transforming its foundational values into a dynamic human relational philosophy that unites all Americans—and humanity at large—in mutual respect and flourishing. Through its four axioms, EIT provides the practical tools to live out individual sovereignty, while definitively barring racism and antisemitism as antithetical to true conservative morals. In an era of fragmentation, EIT offers a pathway to reclaim the promise of a nation where every unique individual thrives in equality and freedom.

True American Conservatism

silhouette of three woman with hands on the air while dancing during sunset

In a recent video circulating on social media by another Republican US Senate candidate expressed frustration with the political divide, asking the question: "Why can't we just get along?" This individual openly shared their history of crossing party lines to vote with Democrats in hopes of securing funding. Russ McAlmond in his bid for the U.S. Senate seat from Oregon considers this video to be naive and by someone who does not understand the political polarization in the US Senate and the core values at stake. Republicans cannot ever compromise on core founding values.&nbsp;We all want effective governance that delivers for all Oregonians. However, as McAlmond's campaign emphasizes, the reality at the U.S. Senate level is far more complex - and compromise isn't always the answer when values are at stake.The issue lies in the extreme polarization that has gripped the Senate. We see this with Merkley and Wyden today and their hate. We also see their positions promoting leftism such as socialism and collective identity classes.&nbsp;The national stage amplifies ideological chasms. Democrats and Republicans aren't just debating policy details; they're operating from worldviews that are often polar opposites. The Republican worldview is to continue with founding values that have made this country so successful. The Democrat's worldviews are coming from Europe and are the same old classism and collectivism.&nbsp;Take, for instance, the Democratic Party's aggressive push for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. While presented as progressive reforms, these initiatives divide society along lines of race, gender, and identity, fostering a form of European-style collectivism that prioritizes group hierarchies over individual merit. It creates classes of people in the USA.&nbsp;This approach dehumanizes Americans by reducing them to categories rather than recognizing their unique potential and individuality.&nbsp;Republicans like Russ McAlmond see this as a direct threat to the American ethos, where success stems from personal effort and innovation, not state-mandated quotas or redistribution schemes. At the heart of this divide is a non-negotiable commitment to individual human rights and identity.&nbsp;Republicans know these rights are inherent to the individual - rooted in the Founding Fathers' vision of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This isn't about following a collective state directive or subordinating personal freedoms to the "greater good" as defined by bureaucrats. Nor is it about creating moral hierarchies where some groups are elevated above others.&nbsp;We cannot compromise on these principles without eroding the very foundation of our republic - "We are all created equal with unalienable rights."&nbsp;Imagine yielding on issues like free speech, Second Amendment rights, or parental authority in education simply to "get along" and unlock funding or favors. Such concessions would empower the collective over the individual, creating identity-based hierarchies that echo the failed socialist experiments of the past. Too many Democratic policies promote this collectivism, from expansive government overreach in healthcare and energy to mandates that stifle economic freedom. McAlmond's campaign rejects this path outright, arguing that true progress comes from empowering people, not pitting groups against each other. Now is not the time to be wishy-washy or compromising about our values. The Democratic Party has veered sharply to the extreme left, embracing radical agendas that prioritize ideological purity over practical solutions. From open borders that strain resources to inflationary spending sprees disguised as "equity," these positions have pushed the extremes far from the rational center. Candidates like the one in the video, are compromising with extremism to get short term gains. Instead, we need strong leaders like Russ McAlmond to stand firm on the very values that made the USA unique in the world.&nbsp;As a long-term Oregonian with a background in business and community service, McAlmond understands the state's needs: bolstering timber industries, protecting family farms, and ensuring energy independence without burdensome regulations. He won't sell out core values for short-term gains; he'll fight for funding through principled negotiation, always prioritizing individual rights that the state cannot infringe upon.In responding to that video, McAlmond's message is clear: Unity isn't about surrendering principles; it's about rediscovering America's founding values. We can "get along" when both sides commit to founding values where individual liberty reigns supreme, not collectivist mandates. Oregon deserves a US Senator who will defend these values in Washington, ensuring that federal dollars serve people without compromising their freedoms. Vote Russ McAlmond for U.S. Senate: Strong on values, strong for Oregon.

Why Can't We Get Along?

Ayn Rand, the Russian-American philosopher and novelist, is renowned for her philosophy of Objectivism, which champions reason, individualism, and laissez-faire capitalism as the foundations of a moral and prosperous society. Central to her worldview was a vehement opposition to collectivism, which she viewed as a destructive force that subordinates the individual to the group, eroding personal rights and stifling human potential. In her seminal works, such as Atlas Shruggedand The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand argued that collectivism not only harms societies by promoting altruism at the expense of self-interest but also fosters division and injustice in human relations. Placing this in the context of the United States, Rand's ideas resonate deeply with the nation's founding principles, contrasting sharply with Europe's historical class-based systems. By examining collectivism's origins and consequences—such as the collective judgments that fueled the Holocaust and American slavery—we can see how Rand's emphasis on individual rights offers a bulwark against such evils, promoting a society where people are judged not by group affiliations but by their own merits.Collectivism, as Rand defined it, is any system that prioritizes the collective—whether the state, society, tribe, or class—over the individual. She saw it as a moral inversion, where the "common good" justifies sacrificing personal freedoms and achievements. In her essay "The Objectivist Ethics," Rand asserted that collectivism demands the individual to live for others, leading to a culture of dependency, resentment, and coercion. This philosophy, she argued, inevitably results in societal harm because it undermines the rational pursuit of one's own life and happiness. Without the freedom to act on one's judgment, innovation stagnates, economies falter, and human relations devolve into power struggles over group dominance. Rand's experiences fleeing Soviet Russia, where communism exemplified collectivism through state control and forced equality, fueled her conviction that such systems breed tyranny, as seen in the gulags and famines under Stalin. For Rand, collectivism is not merely inefficient; it is evil because it denies the metaphysical reality of the individual as the primary unit of value.In human relations, collectivism manifests most perniciously through collective judgments, where individuals are stereotyped and persecuted based on group identities rather than personal character. Rand warned that this tribal mentality divides societies into warring factions, eroding empathy and justice. History provides stark examples of this harm. The Holocaust, one of the most horrific atrocities of the 20th century, stemmed from the Nazi regime's collectivist ideology, which collectively judged Jews as an inferior "race" threatening the Aryan collective. Under this banner, millions were systematically exterminated, not for individual actions but for belonging to a perceived group enemy. Similarly, in the United States, collective judgments of African Americans as inherently inferior justified centuries of slavery and segregation. Enslavers and lawmakers rationalized bondage by viewing Black people as a monolithic class unfit for freedom, ignoring individual humanity and potential. These judgments were not isolated errors but logical outcomes of collectivist thinking, where group labels supersede personal rights. Rand would argue that such divisions arise when societies abandon objective reality—judging people by facts and achievements—in favor of subjective group narratives, leading to resentment, violence, and the erosion of civil liberties.The roots of collectivism trace back to Europe, where rigid class structures historically reinforced inequality and immobility. From feudalism in medieval times to the aristocratic hierarchies of the Enlightenment era, European societies divided people into immutable classes: nobles, clergy, and peasants, with little opportunity for upward mobility. This system elevated certain classes as superior, granting them privileges while subjugating others, often justified by divine right or birthright. Philosophers like Karl Marx later adapted this into modern collectivism, advocating class warfare and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Rand critiqued this European legacy as a form of mysticism, where arbitrary group hierarchies supplanted individual merit. In contrast, the United States represented a radical departure, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Drafted in 1776, this document proclaimed that "all men are created equal" and endowed with "unalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." For the first time in world history, a nation was founded not on collective classes or monarchial decree but on the sovereignty of the individual. Rand celebrated this as a triumph of reason over mysticism, aligning perfectly with her Objectivist ideals. She saw America's capitalist system as the practical embodiment of individualism, where people could rise through voluntary trade and personal effort, free from coercive group mandates.It is precisely this focus on individual rights that Rand emphasized in her opposition to collectivism. In Anthem, her dystopian novella, she depicts a collectivist society where the word "I" is forbidden, illustrating how suppressing individuality leads to intellectual and moral decay. Rand argued that unalienable rights—those inherent to human nature and not granted by any collective—are essential for human flourishing. In the American context, threats to these rights arise when collectivist policies, such as expansive welfare states or identity-based politics, prioritize group equity over individual liberty. For instance, affirmative action or reparations debates often invoke collective guilt or entitlement, judging people by ancestral groups rather than current actions—a slippery slope toward the divisions Rand abhorred. She maintained that true justice comes from treating each person as an end in themselves, not a means to collective ends. By protecting individual rights through limited government and free markets, societies avoid the harms of collectivism, fostering innovation, cooperation, and genuine human relations based on mutual respect and voluntary association.In conclusion, Ayn Rand's philosophy exposes collectivism as a profound threat to society, one that has historically led to division, oppression, and catastrophe through collective judgments and class rigidities. From Europe's feudal legacies to the horrors of the Holocaust and American slavery, collectivism's harm is evident in its denial of individual worth. The United States, with its Declaration of Independence, stands as a beacon of individualism, affirming that all are created equal with the right to pursue personal happiness. Rand's unwavering defense of unalienable rights reminds us that safeguarding the individual is the key to a just and prosperous society. In an era of rising identity politics and group-based conflicts, her ideas urge us to reject collectivist temptations and embrace the rational self-interest that unites rather than divides humanity.

Ayn Rand and Collectivism

Traditional scottish bagpiper at Dunnottar Castle

In the heart of Oregon's political landscape, where the values of hard work, independence, and community run as deep as the roots of ancient fir trees, stands Russ McAlmond, a candidate for the United States Senate. His name, McAlmond, is more than a label—it is a testament to a lineage forged in the rugged highlands of Scotland, carried across oceans and continents by ancestors who embodied resilience and determination. As Russ steps forward to challenge the status quo in Washington, D.C., his story is not one of inherited ambition but of personal conviction. He runs not because politics flows in his blood, but because he sees a disconnect between Oregon's people and their representation under Senator Jeff Merkley, whose extreme positions fail to reflect the mainstream values of family, freedom, and fiscal responsibility that define the Beaver State.The McAlmond name traces its origins to the storied Clan Buchanan of Scotland, a Highland clan whose history stretches back over a millennium to the shores of Loch Lomond. Clan Buchanan, known for its septs and allied families, includes variants like MacCalmont and McCalman—names that evolved into McAlmond through the twists of migration and phonetic adaptation. The Buchanans were warriors and landowners, loyal to their kin and land, embodying the Scottish motto "Clarior Hinc Honos" ("Hence the brighter honor"). Russ's patrilineal line descends from this clan, passed down through generations of men who carried the name and its spirit of perseverance. His father, Philip Hugh McAlmond, his grandfather, his great-grandfather Elijah Hugh McAlmond, and beyond—all bearers of this heritage—link Russ directly to the misty hills of Scotland, where the clan's roots were planted in the 13th century.The migration of the McAlmond family mirrors the broader saga of Scottish and Irish diaspora, a journey driven by opportunity, hardship, and the unyielding pursuit of new horizons. Originating in Scotland, where Clan Buchanan held lands granted by the Earls of Lennox in 1225, the family line likely crossed to Ireland during the turbulent 17th and 18th centuries, amid the Plantation of Ulster and economic pressures that scattered many Highlanders. From there, the path led to Nova Scotia, Canada, a haven for Scottish emigrants seeking fertile ground and freedom from Old World constraints. Historical records note McAlmonds in Nova Scotia's early settlements, intermarrying with local families like the Eatons and establishing roots in communities shaped by the sea and soil. This transatlantic leap was part of a larger wave: Scots fleeing clearances, religious strife, and famine, drawn to the promise of British North America's vast wilderness.It was Russ's great-grandfather, Elijah Hugh McAlmond, who brought the family westward to the Pacific Northwest, embodying the pioneering ethos that would define the region. Born in 1825 in Belfast, Maine—a town echoing the Irish connections of his forebears—Elijah was a sea captain whose adventures took him around Cape Horn to San Francisco and into the untamed waters of Puget Sound by 1850. Settling in what is now Clallam County, Washington, Elijah served as a territorial legislator in 1864, representing the House for Clallam County during Washington's formative years as a territory. His legacy endures in the McAlmond House, a Gothic Revival farmhouse he built around 1861 on the bluffs overlooking Dungeness Spit and the Strait of Juan de Fuca near Sequim. Today, this structure stands as a National Register of Historic Places landmark, a symbol of early Pacific Northwest settlement crafted by ship's carpenters from Massachusetts. Elijah's life was one of leadership and legacy—he held roles as Justice of the Peace, county commissioner, sheriff, and probate judge, all while farming 160 acres and building seagoing vessels. Russ's father, Philip Hugh McAlmond, continued this thread of civic engagement, though in a different era and arena. A dedicated Oregonian, Philip ran for the U.S. Senate in the 1968 Democratic primary, challenging Bob Duncan and Wayne Morse in a hard-fought race that highlighted the era's political turbulence. Though he did not prevail—Morse edged out a narrow victory—Philip's campaign underscored a commitment to principled representation, much like his ancestor's territorial leadership. Now deceased, Philip's memory inspires Russ, not as a mandate to enter politics, but as a reminder of the importance of standing up for one's beliefs.Yet, Russ McAlmond's decision to run for the US Senate in Oregon is not a product of this illustrious family history. He is not chasing a dynastic legacy or leveraging ancestral tales for political gain. Instead, his candidacy stems from a deep-seated belief that Oregon deserves better. Merkley, with his far-left policies on issues like unchecked federal spending, open borders, collectivism, and burdensome regulations, has drifted far from the centrist, pragmatic values that resonate with most Oregonians. From the farmers in the Willamette Valley to the loggers in the Cascades, from small business owners in Portland to families in rural communities, the majority seek a government that protects individual liberties, fosters economic growth, and prioritizes American interests that we are all created equal in value - not groups.&nbsp;Russ sees Merkley's extremism as a betrayal of these ideals, and he steps forward as a fresh voice—one untainted by long tenures in Washington DC insider games—to restore balance and representation. In Russ McAlmond, Oregon finds a candidate whose heritage informs his character but does not dictate his path. His Scottish roots through Clan Buchanan speak to endurance; his family's migration from Scotland to Nova Scotia and the Pacific Northwest reflects adaptability and grit. Elijah's legislative service and home-building in Washington, Philip's bold Senate run in Oregon—these are chapters in a story of quiet strength. But Russ's campaign is about the 21st Century future: replacing division with unity, extremism with common sense. As he carries the McAlmond name into this fight, it serves as a bridge from past to present, reminding us that true leadership comes not from bloodlines, but from the individual courage to serve the people. Oregonians, it's time for a change—vote Russ McAlmond for U.S. Senate.