Blog

Military silhouettes of a soldiers against the sunset

In the closing pages of Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Prince Andrei lies wounded on the battlefield of Borodino and suddenly understands the grotesque disproportion between the grand strategies drawn on maps in St. Petersburg and the fragile, bleeding reality of a single human life. Russ McAlmond did not need to read Tolstoy to learn that truth. He lived it as an eighteen-year-old who enlisted in downtown Portland and left Oregon to be sent overseas across the Pacific. He had a rifle in his hands and the knowledge that the decisions made by distant men in Washington could end his life—or the lives of the men sleeping in the racks beside him—before sunrise.McAlmond joined the Marines in 1970, at the ragged end of the Vietnam era, and served three years of active duty, much of it forward-deployed. He came home with some disabilities and carried back the permanent, quiet weight that every combat veteran recognizes: the understanding that war is not a continuation of policy by other means, as Clausewitz coolly phrased it, but a moral catastrophe that must be entered only when it is critical to the survival of the nation's future as a free country.Tolstoy wrote that history is the sum of countless individual wills, not the puppetry of great men. McAlmond’s foreign policy vision begins there—with the individual will of the nineteen-year-old rifleman, the twenty-year-old corpsman, the twenty-one-year-old pilot who raises her right hand and volunteers to stand in the breach. When Congress debates intervention, McAlmond insists the first question must never be “What do the allies want?” or “How will the markets react?” or “What does the think-tank consensus say?” The first and overriding question must be the one Tolstoy’s soldiers implicitly asked on every battlefield: Is this cause worthy of the life of even one of these young men and women?Because Russ McAlmond has been that young man, that number on original orders that represents him without knowing who he really is. He knows the stakes in a way no staff memo can convey. He has watched friends’ names appear on casualty lists. He has seen the ripple of grief move through families and hometowns. That intimate, irreversible knowledge is the lens through which he will judge every future call to arms. He is not a dove. He believes America must remain unambiguously the strongest military power on earth—because predators respect only strength, and peace is preserved by deterrence, and weakness invites aggression. Yet he is equally certain that strength misused becomes suicide. He will demand that any authorization for military force contain precise objectives and public accounting of progress toward victory or withdrawal. No more forever wars launched by vague resolutions and sustained by bureaucratic inertia. Like Tolstoy’s Kutuzov, who understood that sometimes the wisest strategy is to let the enemy defeat himself, McAlmond believes American power is most effective when it is restrained, deliberate, and overwhelming only when unavoidable. When it is unavoidable—when the nation’s survival or the prevention of genocide truly requires it—he will vote to unleash that power without hesitation or apology.But he will never forget the human arithmetic Tolstoy laid bare: every grand strategic design is paid for in blood measured one life at a time. Oregon has the opportunity to send to the United States Senate a man who has already paid part of that price himself - a Marine combat infantryman who knows exactly what it feels like to be the chip placed on the geopolitical table by the DC politicians who may never have risked their own lives for the country.&nbsp;Russ will carry the memory of every Marine, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Guardian who never came home into the committee rooms and onto the Senate floor. He will insist that America wages war only when the cause is as just as the sacrifice is terrible—and that we seek peace not because we are weak, but because we are strong enough to bear its cost.But the only victory worth winning, the only cause worthy of an American rifleman’s life, is the one that springs from love — love of country, love of liberty, love of the young men and women who raise their right hands and stand ready to pay the ultimate price. Semper Fidelis.&nbsp;

Foreign Policy - War and Peace

AI Laws and Regulations Concept. Man touches digital icons represent justice, AI, copyright, and regulations, symbolizing intersection of law and artificial intelligence. policy, copyright, patent

In an era where American political discourse is increasingly fractured by identity-based divisions, Russ McAlmond emerges as a distinctive voice advocating for a philosophical antidote: Ethical Individualism (EI). As a Republican candidate challenging incumbent Senator Jeff Merkley in Oregon's 2026 U.S. Senate race, McAlmond weaves this human relational framework—detailed in his 2021 book Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy—into the core of his campaign. EI posits that true equality and respect arise not from group affiliations but from recognizing each person's inherent uniqueness as a "distinct mosaic of experiences," free from stereotypes tied to race, religion, or nationality. This approach stands in deliberate contrast to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which McAlmond critiques as a Democratic-promoted scheme that inadvertently reinforces "group judgmentalism" and tribalism. By championing EI, McAlmond envisions a national shift toward interpersonal relations grounded in mutual respect, positioning it as a superior model for reducing societal polarization and fostering unity in the United States.McAlmond's incorporation of EI into his Senate bid is no mere rhetorical flourish; it reflects his lifelong commitment financial leader and human rights advocate. He founded the Center for Human Equality in Grants Pass, Oregon, to combat bias through individualized empathy. His campaign, rooted in conservative values like fiscal responsibility and rural advocacy, extends this philosophy into policy, promising in-person town halls and ethical governance that treats constituents as equals, not demographics. This essay explores why McAlmond integrates EI into his platform, arguing that it serves as a pragmatic counter to DEI's limitations, offering a blueprint for national human relations that diminishes tribalism and elevates individual dignity.The Foundations of Ethical Individualism: McAlmond's Philosophical CoreAt its essence, Ethical Individualism is a relational ethic that prioritizes the "primacy and reality of individuality over groupism." Developed by McAlmond in response to persistent racism and social fragmentation, EI asserts that every human occupies a "horizontal line of equality," where no one—regardless of background—holds inherent superiority or inferiority. This is not abstract idealism but a practical guide: interactions must be symbiotic, benefiting both parties through trust built on perceiving others as multifaceted individuals, not reducible to collective labels. McAlmond's theory arose from personal and professional reflections. As a U.S. Marine veteran and financial planner with dual master's degrees (MBA and MSFS), he witnessed how "group judgmentalism"—prejudging individuals based on affiliations—erodes trust in client relationships and communities alike. In his book, he dismantles the "fallacy of collective guilt," arguing that just as criminal justice holds individuals accountable rather than families or ethnic groups, social justice must reject blanket condemnations. "There is no such thing as collective guilt—only individual guilt," he writes, extending this to politics, where tribal loyalties fuel division. EI's appeal lies in its universality, drawing from ethics of compassion while embracing secular reason and science. It calls for rejecting favoritism—whether toward "favored" groups in historical narratives or modern quotas—and instead weaving "a tapestry of peace where no group stands above another." For McAlmond, this philosophy is not isolationist but connective: by honoring each person's unique worth, we dismantle barriers, creating symbiotic bonds that enrich society.DEI as a Foil: The Perils of Group-Centric SchemesMcAlmond's campaign explicitly positions EI against DEI, which he views as a well-intentioned but flawed Democratic strategy for human relations. Promoted aggressively in politics and government under administrations like Biden's, DEI frameworks emphasize group identities—race, gender, ethnicity—to address inequities, often through quotas, training, and policies that prioritize demographic representation. While aiming for equity, McAlmond argues, DEI inadvertently perpetuates the very tribalism it seeks to eradicate by reducing people to group proxies, fostering resentment and "demonizing whole groups of people." Consider the mechanics: DEI often relies on intersectional analyses that categorize individuals into hierarchies of privilege or oppression, encouraging judgments based on shared traits rather than personal merit or actions. McAlmond, through his work with the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, has seen this play out locally in Oregon, where inflammatory rhetoric—such as anti-LGBTQ comments by officials—harms economic development and tourism by painting entire communities as bigoted. Nationally, DEI's rollout in federal agencies and corporations has sparked backlash, with critics like McAlmond highlighting how it incentivizes performative allyship over genuine understanding, exacerbating polarization. In a 2023 essay, he explains that such schemes fail because "we are not groups—we are individuals," and treating us otherwise undermines the symbiotic trust essential for progress. This critique resonates in Oregon's political landscape, a state grappling with urban-rural divides and cultural tensions. As a Republican in a predominantly blue state, McAlmond leverages EI to appeal beyond partisan lines, decrying how DEI-style groupism alienates rural voters who feel stereotyped as "deplorable" or overlooked in policy debates. By framing DEI as a relational dead end, he elevates EI as a bipartisan corrective—one that Democrats might adopt if they recognize its potential to fulfill equalty's promise without the divisiveness.Incorporating EI into the Campaign: A Strategy for National RenewalMcAlmond's Senate campaign, launched amid Oregon's 2026 primaries, integrates EI as both ethos and policy driver, transforming foundational philosophy into actionable governance. His platform emphasizes "common-sense leadership" and "representing every Oregonian—not just one party or one region," echoing EI's call for equal respect across divides. Running against Merkley, a three-term Democrat, McAlmond targets outreach statewide to Independents, Republicans and Democrats. He pledges town halls that embody EI: forums where participants are engaged as unique voices, not demographic checkboxes, fostering dialogue on issues like rural healthcare, public safety, and economic inflation without group-based blame. McAlmond is offering a positive, inclusive conservatism that counters perceptions of the GOP as tribal or lacking empathy. Substantively, it addresses national ills: rising political violence, media echo chambers, and identity-driven conflicts that have deepened since 2020. McAlmond believes EI can "become a national...way for human beings in the USA to relate to each other," supplanting DEI by promoting policies like ethics training in government that prioritizes individual accountability over collective reparations. In education and workforce development, for instance, he advocates curricula that teach symbiotic relations, reducing "minority" or "majority" framings that breed resentment. By embedding EI, McAlmond's campaign models its principles: his background of bridging faiths exemplifies rejecting "groupism" for universal dignity, while his financial expertise ensures ethical, non-partisan solutions to the country's budget woes. This holistic approach not only bolsters his electability in a state where independents and moderates sway outcomes but also plants seeds for broader adoption, much like how DEI permeated institutions under Democratic stewardship.Toward a Less Tribal AmericaRussell McAlmond's infusion of Ethical Individualism into his U.S. Senate campaign is a bold reclamation of human relations from the clutches of group judgmentalism. Where DEI, for all its merits in spotlighting inequities, risks entrenching tribal divisions through its collective lens, EI offers liberation: a horizontal equality where every interaction honors the individual, fostering trust and symbiosis on a national scale. In Oregon's diverse tapestry—from Portland's urban progressives to eastern ranchlands—McAlmond's vision promises reduced polarization, ethical governance, and a conservatism that unites rather than divides.As the 2026 election unfolds, McAlmond's EI-driven bid challenges America to evolve beyond DEI's paradigm, embracing a philosophy that treats citizens as ends in themselves. If successful, it could herald a relational renaissance, proving that true progress lies not in group anthems but in the quiet dignity of one person seeing another clearly. In McAlmond's words, through EI, we "weave a humanity where all are cherished, and none stand apart"—a mantra for a more cohesive United States.

Ethical Individualism and National Politics

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), founded in 1982 and now the largest socialist organization in the United States with over 90,000 dues-paying members, openly declares its ultimate goal to be the democratic control of the economy by the working class. While the DSA often presents its agenda in the language of “worker empowerment” and “economic justice,” a closer examination of its platform, resolutions, and the writings of its leading intellectuals reveals a far more radical vision: the gradual but systematic replacement of private ownership of the means of production with collective or state control, culminating in a society where private property rights, especially in housing and land, are severely curtailed or abolished altogether.The DSA’s 2023 platform and numerous chapter resolutions call for the “democratic control of the means of production” through mechanisms such as worker cooperatives, nationalization of key industries, and the creation of worker-elected committees that would oversee or outright replace private management. The organization’s “Ecosocialist Green New Deal” resolution explicitly demands public ownership of utilities, transportation, and heavy industry. Its housing platform goes further, advocating rent control, massive public housing construction, and “social housing” models that transfer ownership of rental properties from private landlords to non-profit or state entities. Several DSA chapters have passed resolutions supporting “decommodification” of housing—meaning the removal of housing from the private market so that it can be allocated according to “need” as determined by public authorities rather than by individual choice or market exchange.This is not mere reform. Once housing is “decommodifed,” private property rights in residential real estate effectively cease to exist for large segments of the population. The state or its designated committees decide who lives where, for how long, and under what conditions. Historical precedent is unambiguous: every 20th-century regime that began with slogans about “housing as a human right” and “ending speculation” ended with state bureaucracies assigning apartments, confiscating “excess” living space, and punishing citizens for attempting private rentals or sales. The DSA may insist it wants a “democratic version of this arrangement, but the end result is the same: the individual no longer owns or controls the roof over their head; a committee does.This vision places the DSA on the extreme left of the classic liberty spectrum. That spectrum is not primarily about “change versus tradition” or “equality versus hierarchy,” as some academics misleadingly teach. It is, at root, a measure of who ultimately holds power over the individual’s life and property: the individual themselves (right) or the state and its appointed authorities (left). Capitalism, for all its assumed flaws, disperses economic power among millions of private decision-makers and protects the individual’s right to own, buy, sell, and use property without needing permission from a central committee. Socialism of the DSA variety concentrates that power in the hands of the state or state-empowered “worker councils,” which inevitably become political bodies enforcing ideological conformity.The result is not “worker liberation”; it is totalitarian control dressed in populist rhetoric. When the state or its committees can decide who gets what job, what factory they work in, what apartment they live in, and what income they are allowed, the distinction between “economic democracy” and comprehensive state domination collapses. The individual becomes a ward of the state, granted resources only insofar as they serve the collective goals defined by the ruling ideology.This is why the DSA’s program, however softly it is marketed today, represents a direct assault on the core American principle that rights inhere in individuals, not in collectives, and that the state exists to protect those rights rather than to abolish them in the name of “justice.”Oregon provides a clear illustration of these competing visions in practice. U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley has repeatedly aligned himself with DSA positions and members. He has co-sponsored Bernie Sanders’ workplace democracy act that would mandate worker seats on corporate boards, endorsed the PRO Act that would dramatically empower unions at the expense of private business owners, and consistently supported the most aggressive versions of rent control and public housing takeover legislation. Multiple DSA chapters in Oregon have endorsed Merkley or praised him as an ally in the fight for “socialist policies.”In contrast, Republican Senate candidate Russ McAlmond has made opposition to socialism and defense of free-market capitalism a centerpiece of his campaign. McAlmond explicitly warns against the nationalization and worker-committee takeover of industry, defends private property rights as the foundation of liberty, and argues that free markets—not government committees—are the only proven mechanism for setting fair prices, allocating resources efficiently, and maximizing individual freedom.The choice Oregon voters face in the coming years is therefore stark: one path leads toward ever-greater state control over the economy and private life in the name of democratic socialism; the other defends the classical-liberal order of limited government, private property, and individual rights that built the most prosperous and free society in human history.

The Democratic Socialists (DSA) - Totalitarian?

Flip letter cubes and changes the word "LOVE" to "HATE"

For nearly two decades, Oregonians have sent Jeff Merkley to Washington with the expectation that he would fight for Oregon jobs, Oregon families, and Oregon values. Instead, too many of his votes and statements over the last nine years have been driven by one overriding emotion: hatred of Donald Trump. That hatred has not only clouded Senator Merkley’s judgment; it has led him to oppose policies that would plainly help the people of Oregon and the United States, simply because Donald Trump supported them first.This is not principled opposition. This is Trump Derangement Syndrome in its purest form, and it is both irrational and deeply unhealthy for our politics.When a politician’s first question about any policy becomes “Did Trump propose it?” rather than “Will this help the American people?”, the public interest inevitably comes last. Senator Merkley has fallen into that trap again and again.Consider border security. President Trump made securing the southern border and enforcing immigration law a centerpiece of his agenda. Senator Merkley responded by becoming one of the most vocal defenders of sanctuary policies and open-border activism in the entire United States Senate. He has repeatedly voted against funding for border barriers, against ending catch-and-release, and against measures that would allow ICE to remove dangerous criminal aliens living illegally in Oregon communities.The result? Oregon now ranks near the top in fentanyl overdose deaths per capita, with Mexican cartels using our state as a distribution hub. Farmers in eastern Oregon watch helplessly as illegal labor undercuts wages and trespassing damages crops. Housing prices in Portland and Bend continue to soar in part because of unchecked migration straining supply. These are real Oregonians being hurt, yet Senator Merkley’s reflexive opposition to anything associated with Trump has prevented common-sense reforms that the majority of Oregonians actually support when polled without partisan labels.The same pattern repeats on foreign policy. President Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and brokered the Abraham Accords, the most significant advance toward Arab-Israeli peace in a generation. Senator Merkley’s response has been to co-sponsor legislation that would restrict aid to Israel, to vote against anti-BDS measures, and to issue statements more critical statements about Israel than about Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran combined.This is not the traditional Democratic support for a two-state solution; it is a punitive posture adopted largely because Donald Trump was the most pro-Israel president in modern history. When hatred of one man causes a senator to tilt against America’s closest ally in a dangerous region, it is the American people, and ultimately the cause of peace itself, that suffer.Energy policy offers another glaring example. President Trump sought American energy dominance through expanded domestic production and export of oil and natural gas. Senator Merkley has opposed virtually every pipeline, every LNG export terminal, and every attempt to open federal lands for responsible energy development. Oregon families now pay some of the highest electricity rates in the continental United States, rural communities watch good-paying jobs go to other states, and the Port of Coos Bay sits idle instead of becoming an energy export hub that could transform southwestern Oregon’s economy, all because policies that would help Oregonians bore the fatal defect of having been advanced by Donald Trump.This is not leadership. This is irrational hatred. Healthy politics requires disagreement, yes, but it also requires the ability to acknowledge when your opponent has a good idea. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill could hammer each other by day and share a drink by night. Bill Clinton signed welfare reform and NAFTA despite fierce opposition within his own party because he believed those policies would help Americans. Even Joe Biden kept some of the Trump tax cuts in place when he could have let them expire. That is mature statecraft. What we have seen from Jeff Merkley is the opposite: a senator who appears incapable of supporting anything, no matter how beneficial, if it carries the taint of Donald Trump. That is not strength; it is weakness. It is not principle; it is obsession. And it is certainly not what Oregonians deserve from their senator.Oregon needs a state that prides itself on independence, pragmatism, and getting things done. We send people to Washington to solve problems, not to nurse grudges. Russ McAlmond is running for Senate because he believes we can have strong borders and humane immigration policies, support Israel without abandoning the pursuit of peace, and produce American energy while still protecting our environment, all without checking first to see how Donald Trump feels about it.In 2026, <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);">Oregonians will have a clear choice: continue with a senator whose voting record is dictated by personal animus toward a president, or elect new leadership that puts Oregon and America first.It’s time to move past the politics of hatred and get back to the politics of results. Oregon can do better. Oregon must do better.

The Irrational Poison of Trump Hatred

Gavel in front of a pistol. Gun laws and legislation concept.

The Second Amendment is not a privilege granted by government; it is a pre-existing, natural right explicitly recognized and protected by our Constitution. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those final four words could not be clearer: shall not be infringed.Every law-abiding and mentally stable citizen of the United States has the right to defend themselves, their family, and their home with the firearm of their choice. Full stop. No permission slip from the government is required, because self-defense is a natural right that predates any legislature.We’ve all heard the tired slogan pushed after every tragedy: “Guns kill people.” No - people kill people. A firearm is an inanimate object, no different in moral agency than a car, a knife, or a baseball bat. Evil or deranged individuals commit acts of violence, not the tools they unfortunately choose. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Passing another stack of gun-control statutes only burdens the law-abiding citizen while doing exactly nothing to stop those who have already decided to break the law.If we genuinely want to reduce violence, we should focus on the actual root cause: mental health. Oregon and America are in the grip of a mental health crisis. Skyrocketing youth suicide rates, untreated severe mental illness, the fentanyl epidemic tearing families apart, and a culture that too often glorifies violence while isolating the vulnerable—these are the issues driving “gun violence,” not the presence of firearms owned by responsible citizens. We need aggressive early intervention, expanded access to inpatient and outpatient treatment, and a willingness to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who have been adjudicated as dangerous—not endless new restrictions on peaceful Oregonians who have never harmed anyone.We are not just talking theory with this Marine candidate. Russ McAlmond is a certified NRA handgun instructor where gun safety comes first - always.&nbsp;More importantly, he spent years on active duty with the United States Marine Corps teaching young Marines how to safely and effectively employ their service rifles and pistols in defense of this nation. He has seen firsthand what proper training and respect for firearms can accomplish. Responsible gun ownership saves lives far more often than it ever endangers them - whether it’s a mother protecting her children from a home invasion in rural Josephine County or a shopkeeper defending his livelihood in downtown Portland.Oregonians are some of the most independent, self-reliant people in America. From the ranchers in Harney County to the loggers on the coast, from the hunters in the Cascades to the families in the Willamette Valley, we understand that when seconds count, help is minutes away. The police cannot be everywhere, and they have no legal duty to protect individual citizens (the Supreme Court has ruled so repeatedly). Your safety is ultimately your responsibility.That is why he will always defend—without apology or compromise—your Second Amendment rights in the U.S. Senate. No surrender of our constitutional rights to international bodies or unelected bureaucrats. Oregon doesn’t need another politician who will trade away your freedoms for political votes. Oregon needs a Marine who has trained America’s finest, who understands the difference between liberty and license, and who will stand like a stone wall for the Constitution.

2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights

Girl with a skateboard and women practicing different sports

For over fifty years, Title IX has stood as one of America’s greatest civil-rights achievements: it guaranteed women and girls a fair playing field by creating sex-segregated sports. That separation wasn’t arbitrary—it was the only way to give females a realistic chance to compete, win, and earn scholarships when biology otherwise stacks the deck overwhelmingly in favor of males. Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley now wants to dismantle that hard-won fairness. He insists that biological males who identify as transgender must be allowed to compete in women’s and girls’ sports, dismissing mountains of evidence that male puberty confers irreversible advantages in muscle mass, bone density, heart size, lung capacity, and fast-twitch fiber—advantages that even years of hormone suppression do not erase. Merkley waves away broken records, crushed dreams, and locker-room privacy violations as acceptable collateral damage in the name of “inclusion.” In reality, his policy sacrifices the rights and safety of millions of female athletes to accommodate a vanishingly small number of transgender-identifying males. Republican challenger Russ McAlmond refuses to let that happen. He understands that genuine equality and authentic human rights for women are protected only when sports remain separated by biological sex—the very principle Title IX was written to defend. McAlmond points out the obvious: when males compete as females, women’s records vanish overnight, podium spots disappear, and scholarships evaporate. That is not compassion; it is the opposite of fairness.The American people, the scientific community, and now the governing bodies of sport have overwhelmingly rejected Merkley’s position:February 2025: President Trump signs an Executive Order banning transgender females from women’s sports and withholding federal funds from any school or program that refuses to comply.&nbsp; The NCAA (Feb 2025) and NAIA (2024) immediately bar athletes assigned male at birth from women’s competition.&nbsp; 25 states have enacted full bans on males in girls’ school sports—Oregon, under Merkley’s party’s control, remains one of the holdouts.&nbsp; The International Olympic Committee and nearly every major Olympic federation are moving toward blanket bans on biological males in elite women’s events.&nbsp; A January 2025 New York Times/Ipsos poll finds 79% of Americans believe transgender-identifying males should not compete in women’s sports.&nbsp; Female athletes across the country are forfeiting matches rather than legitimize the injustice—most notably the 2024 boycotts of San Jose State’s volleyball team. Russ McAlmond is clear: the rights of 99.9% of female athletes cannot be held hostage by the wishes of a tiny fraction of a percent. True compassion does not require girls to step aside so boys can take their places, their medals, and their opportunities. Real equality is not achieved by pretending biology doesn’t exist—it is secured by respecting it.This November, Oregonians have a choice: stand with Jeff Merkley and watch women’s sports be rolled back to pre-Title IX days, or stand with Russ McAlmond and defend the fairness, safety, and human rights of every daughter, sister, and granddaughter who simply wants to compete on a level playing field.The evidence, the public, and justice itself are all on the side of keeping men out of women’s sports.