Blog

United States of America traditional government office view

In an era dominated by narratives of systemic injustice and identity-based conflicts, Russell McAlmond's philosophy of Ethical Individualism stands as a compelling alternative. Outlined in his 2021 book Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy, this framework emphasizes the infinite uniqueness of each human being, rejecting any form of "group judgmentalism" that assigns moral value based on collective categories. Instead, it advocates for human relations grounded in mutual respect, trust, and dignity, viewing every person as an irreplaceable "mosaic of experiences" rather than a representative of a group. This approach is fundamentally antithetical to the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, a paradigm rooted in Karl Marx's class analysis and extended by modern leftist thought into broader identity politics. That dichotomy posits society as divided into inherently antagonistic groups: the powerful oppressors, deemed morally corrupt by their dominance, and the powerless oppressed, often idealized as virtuous victims. Such a framework is not only a false binary that oversimplifies human morality by judging entire groups based on supposed power dynamics but also errs in treating power as intrinsically immoral. Ethical Individualism counters this by affirming individual moral agency and recognizing power as morally neutral—dependent entirely on the character and intentions of those who wield it.The Foundations of Ethical IndividualismEthical Individualism, as articulated by McAlmond, is a "human relational philosophy" designed for the 21st century, prioritizing individuality over collective identities. It argues that every person possesses an "infinite uniqueness," shaped by personal perceptions, inner experiences, and choices, which cannot be reduced to group affiliations like race, class, nationality, or power status. Groupism, in McAlmond's view, fosters division and undermines equality by imposing stereotypes and collective guilt or privilege, leading to toxic judgmentalism. Instead, moral evaluations must focus on observable individual actions and character, promoting win-win interactions that cultivate harmony. This philosophy emerged from McAlmond's experiences as an advocate for human equality, responding to modern discourses that exacerbate polarization through group-based narratives. At its core, Ethical Individualism upholds moral agency as residing in the individual, not derived from or tainted by group membership. Power, wealth, or status does not inherently corrupt; rather, ethical outcomes depend on how individuals exercise their agency. This stands in stark opposition to frameworks that essentialize groups as morally superior or inferior based on power imbalances.The Oppressor-Oppressed Dichotomy in Marxism and Modern LeftismThe oppressor-oppressed framework originates in Marx's historical materialism, which interprets human history as a perpetual class struggle between the bourgeoisie (oppressors, who control the means of production) and the proletariat (oppressed, who are exploited for labor). For Marx, this binary drives societal change, with oppression stemming from economic dominance, rendering the powerful inherently immoral and the powerless victims deserving of revolutionary uplift. In the 20th century, this dichotomy evolved through critical theory and the Frankfurt School, expanding beyond class to encompass race, gender, sexuality, and other identities—a process often termed "cultural Marxism." Modern leftist thought, influenced by figures like Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, further entrenches this by portraying violence or resistance from the oppressed as justified, while deeming oppressors' actions as inherently violent. In contemporary applications, such as critical race theory and intersectionality, the framework identifies "oppressors" (e.g., whites, males, heterosexuals) as privileged and complicit in systemic harm, while "oppressed" groups (e.g., people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals) are positioned as morally elevated due to their victimization. Defenders argue it illuminates systemic inequalities, empowering marginalized voices and justifying reparative actions. However, critics contend it reduces complex societies to binaries, fostering division, excusing misconduct from "oppressed" groups, and inverting traditional moral accountability. The False Dichotomy: Group Judgments and the Demonization of PowerThis oppressor-oppressed lens is a false dichotomy because it judges entire groups as morally inferior solely based on perceived power dynamics, ignoring individual variation and agency. It assumes oppressors are uniformly corrupt, while the oppressed are inherently noble, romanticizing victimhood and potentially justifying harm against the former. This overlooks how individuals within "oppressed" groups can perpetrate evil, or those in "oppressor" groups can act benevolently, reducing people to stereotypes and eroding personal responsibility. Moreover, it treats power as inherently immoral, equating dominance with ethical depravity, which discourages responsible leadership and perpetuates cycles of resentment. Power as Morally NeutralPhilosophically, power is morally neutral—a capacity or tool that amplifies the wielder's existing character, intentions, and values, rather than possessing inherent good or evil. As Lord Acton noted, power "tends to corrupt," but this is a tendency, not an inevitability, influenced by psychological factors like disinhibition rather than intrinsic morality. It can enable large-scale good (e.g., just governance) or harm (e.g., tyranny), depending on the morality of individuals or institutions. Seeking power is not unethical in itself; its ethicality lies in acquisition and use. This neutrality aligns with virtue ethics, where power requires guardrails like accountability to prevent abuse. Ethical Individualism's Disagreement: Moral Agency and Power NeutralityEthical Individualism rejects the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy precisely because it violates individual moral agency, imposing group-based moral inferiority that hinders genuine connections. By focusing on uniqueness, it counters the fallacy of collective guilt, insisting judgments be based on personal ethics, not power positions. Power's neutrality reinforces this: a powerful individual's morality is assessed by actions (e.g., benevolent use for mutual benefit), not mere possession. This promotes accountability and empathy, avoiding the dichotomy's pitfalls of division and moral inversion. In conclusion, the oppressor-oppressed framework, while aiming to address injustices, creates a false moral binary that dehumanizes through group judgments and misattributes immorality to power itself. Ethical Individualism offers a superior path by embracing individual agency and power's neutrality, fostering relations built on respect rather than resentment. In a polarized world, McAlmond's vision reminds us that true equality arises from recognizing each person's irreplaceable humanity and agency.&nbsp;

Power is Morally Neutral

Bible opened next to patriotic American flag, symbolizing faith national pride during quiet reading session

In the heart of America's founding principles lies the unassailable right to freedom of religion—or freedom from religion—a cornerstone that protects every citizen's conscience and beliefs. It is unAmerican to be opposed to freedom of religion for everyone.&nbsp;As a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Oregon, I, Russ McAlmond, believe it is imperative for our party to uphold this fundamental liberty with unwavering commitment. Republicans in Oregon and across the nation must be vigilant in respecting these rights for all Americans, including our fellow party members. By doing so, we not only honor the Constitution but also build a stronger, more inclusive party capable of winning elections and governing effectively.The temptation to transform the Republican Party into a "Christian only" enclave is a misguided path that ultimately shrinks our ranks rather than expanding them. History teaches us that exclusivity breeds division, while inclusivity fosters growth. When we insist on religious litmus tests, we alienate potential allies who share our core values of limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and strong national defense. These principles are not the exclusive domain of any one faith; they resonate with Americans from all walks of life. Good Republicans come in many forms—they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, and more. Each brings unique perspectives and strengths to our cause. To suggest otherwise is not only untrue but counterproductive. There is no single religion for the Republican Party; our tent must be big enough for all who believe in conservative ideals, regardless of their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof.This message is particularly critical in Oregon, a state where statewide victories hinge on broad coalitions. Republicans here cannot afford to win only in echo chambers; we need the support of independent voters, who make up a significant portion of our electorate. These independents often prioritize practical solutions over ideological purity, and they are quick to reject any hint of religious favoritism in politics. By welcoming diverse voices, we appeal to these crucial swing voters, demonstrating that the GOP is a party for all Oregonians—farmers in the Willamette Valley, tech workers in Portland, and families in rural communities alike. <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);">In a state as diverse as ours, from the coastal towns to the high desert, our success depends on unity, not uniformity. <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);">Let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with Christians becoming more politically involved in the Republican Party. In fact, their participation enriches our discussions and brings moral clarity to issues like family values, community service, and ethical governance. <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);">Faith-inspired activism has long been a positive force in American politics, motivating leaders to fight for justice and compassion. However, it is vital for the credibility and longevity of our party that we do not allow it to morph into a one-religion entity. Such a shift would alienate non-Christians and even fellow Christians who may not align with a narrow interpretation of faith. <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);">We must resist the urge to judge or exclude based on perceived religious authenticity, ensuring that no one is sidelined simply because they do not fit a self-proclaimed "true Christian" mold. Instead, we should evaluate potential Republican nominees and leaders based on their qualifications, experience, and knowledge of secular governance that serves everyone. <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);">Does a candidate understand the intricacies of federal policy, from economic reform to environmental stewardship? Have they demonstrated a track record of effective leadership in their communities or professions? Are they committed to upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights for all, without imposing personal beliefs on others? <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);">These are the questions that matter. By focusing on merit over faith, we ensure that our party fields the best possible representatives—ones who can win elections and deliver results for Oregon families.As we move forward in this campaign, let us recommit to the Republican Party as a beacon of freedom, where religious diversity is not a liability but a strength. <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);">Together, we can build a party that reflects the true mosaic of America, winning hearts and minds across the spectrum. I ask for your support in this vision for Oregon and the USA: vote Russ McAlmond for U.S. Senate, and let's secure a prosperous, inclusive future for all of us.&nbsp;

Religious Freedom in Oregon

In the politically diverse state of Oregon, where nonaffiliated voters (NAVs) now comprise the largest segment of the electorate at around 36%, followed closely by Democrats at 32% and Republicans at 24%, defeating a long-serving incumbent like Senator Jeff Merkley requires more than traditional party-line appeals. Merkley, a Democrat first elected in 2008 and seeking a fourth term in 2026, has built a reputation as a progressive aligned with extreme left-wing causes, including strong support for the Green New Deal, opposition to border security measures, and advocacy for policies that some view as prioritizing identity politics over individual rights. Yet, his positions have alienated moderate voters, creating an opening for a Republican challenger—if the GOP nominates the right candidate. The only realistic path to victory lies in selecting a moderate like Russ McAlmond, a human rights activist, U.S. Marine veteran, and author whose credentials can neutralize Democratic attacks on Republican human rights records while attracting crossover votes from independents, NAVs, and even disillusioned Democrats who see Merkley as having veered too far left.The Pitfalls of Past Republican NominationsOregon Republicans have struggled to mount competitive challenges against Democratic senators in recent cycles, largely due to nominating candidates perceived as extremists or conspiracy theorists. A prime example is Jo Rae Perkins, the 2020 Republican nominee who ran against Merkley. Perkins, a perennial candidate and vocal supporter of QAnon theories, garnered only 39.3% of the vote in a race where Merkley secured a comfortable 56.9% majority. Her association with fringe ideas, including claims about a "deep state" and election denialism, alienated moderates and independents, who make up a critical voting bloc in Oregon. Perkins' campaign raised minimal funds—less than $100,000 by election's end—and failed to broaden appeal beyond the GOP base. This pattern repeated in 2022 when Perkins again won the Republican primary for the other Senate seat but lost decisively to incumbent Ron Wyden, capturing just 40.9%. Such nominees reinforce Democratic narratives that Republicans are out of touch or extreme, deterring the state's large NAV population—many of whom supported Merkley in past elections—from considering GOP alternatives. To flip the seat, Republicans must avoid hardcore ideologues who cannot expand the tent. Nominating another conspiracy theorist or far-right figure would doom the effort, as it did with Perkins, ensuring Merkley's reelection in a state that hasn't sent a Republican to the Senate since 2002.Merkley's Shift Leftward and the Opportunity for ModeratesJeff Merkley, once seen as a pragmatic Democrat with roots in Oregon's timber country, has increasingly aligned with the party's progressive wing, creating vulnerabilities among centrist voters. As ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and a senior voice on foreign relations, Merkley has championed causes like the Green New Deal, which he describes as needing to "transform every sector of our economy," including phasing out fossil fuels—a stance that resonates in urban Portland but alienates rural Oregonians dependent on logging, farming, and energy jobs. He has opposed border security enhancements, co-sponsored bills to limit ICE operations, and supported sanctuary policies, even as Oregon grapples with fentanyl influxes and strained resources. Merkley has also backed expansions of gender-affirming care for minors and revisions to Title IX that allow biological males in women's sports, positions criticized as prioritizing ideology over fairness and parental rights. These stances have drawn praise from extremist groups like the Portland and Eugene Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who hail him as a "strong ally" on anti-Israel platforms, including his votes against aid to Israel and condemnations of its actions in Gaza. For moderate Democrats and independents, this represents a drift too far left, especially in a state where economic concerns like inflation, homelessness, and wildfire management loom large. Polls and voter registration trends suggest growing dissatisfaction: NAVs have surged to outnumber both major parties, often citing disillusionment with extremism on both sides. A candidate who can frame Merkley as an ideologue while offering common-sense alternatives could peel off these voters, but only if they trust the Republican to uphold human rights and unity—areas where the GOP has been vulnerable to attacks.Russ McAlmond: A Moderate with Gravitas and AppealEnter Russ McAlmond, a Republican candidate who stands out as uniquely positioned to exploit these openings. A U.S. Marine veteran who enlisted at 18 during wartime, McAlmond brings military discipline and a commitment to service, having earned service-connected disabilities from his 15-month overseas deployment. His educational credentials are impressive: bachelor's degrees in Business Administration and Management &amp; Organizational Leadership, an MBA, an MSFS (Master of Science in Financial Services), and certifications as a CFP (Certified Financial Planner), ChFC (Chartered Financial Consultant), and CLU (Chartered Life Underwriter). As founder and Executive Director of the Center for Human Equality (CHE) in Grants Pass, Oregon, he has dedicated his career to human rights advocacy, emphasizing "ethical individualism"—a philosophy that treats every person as a unique individual deserving respect, beyond group identities or stereotypes. McAlmond's book, Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy, published in 2021 directly addresses improving human relations through truth, unity, and rejecting racism, judgments, and collectivism. Drawing from his own dysfunctional family background—marked by parental divorce and relational strife—McAlmond advocates for empathy-driven policies, such as mental health resources for at-risk youth and veterans, while promoting individual rights over group-based divisions. This human rights focus allows him to reframe the party as the historical champion of equality (e.g., Lincoln's anti-slavery legacy) against Democratic collectivism. As a self-described "common-sense centrist," McAlmond opposes extremism on both sides, pledging town halls in all 36 counties, secure borders without sanctuary policies, affordable energy without crippling rural jobs, and protections for women's sports and parental rights. His campaign emphasizes unity, calling for "zero tolerance for hate" including antisemitism, and standing firmly with Israel against terrorism - contrasting sharply with Merkley's hateful criticisms. Early indicators, like Polymarket odds giving him a 58% chance of winning the GOP primary, reflect his growing appeal. McAlmond's Unique Ability to Attract Crossover VotesWhat sets McAlmond apart is his potential to draw from Oregon's vast pool of moderates. In a state where NAVs and independents decide close races, his articulate, educated demeanor and focus on human relations can attract those who backed Merkley previously but now view him as too radical. Moderate Democrats concerned about inflation, drug addiction, or gender policies in schools may cross over, seeing McAlmond as a fighter for individual opportunity—scholarships based on merit, not race; criminal justice protecting victims; and legal immigration aligned with American values. His veteran status and anti-extremism message resonate with rural voters, while his human rights activism blunts urban Democratic smears.No Other Republican Matches McAlmond's ProfileAmong the 2026 GOP field none possess McAlmond's combination of gravitas, education, and broad appeal. Other Republicans lack his national profile, book authorship, or human rights credentials, risking a repeat of Perkins' narrow base. Conclusion: The Path ForwardTo defeat Jeff Merkley, Republicans must nominate Russ McAlmond—a moderate human rights activist whose intelligence, articulation, and vision for unity offer the only credible shot at victory. By appealing to Oregon's moderate core and neutralizing partisan attacks, McAlmond can turn Merkley's leftward extremism into a liability, mobilizing NAVs, independents, and crossover Democrats. Any other choice risks another conspiracy nomination and certain defeat. Oregon deserves a senator who prioritizes common sense over ideology; McAlmond is that leader.

Defeat Merkley - Only McAlmond Has a Path

United States Marine Corps flag textile cloth fabric waving on the top sunrise mist fog

In the realm of American storytelling, few narratives capture the essence of perseverance, faith, and the fight for individual rights as poignantly as the movie "Average Joe" (2024). Directed by Harold Cronk and starring Eric Close as the titular character, the film is based on the real-life saga of Joe Kennedy, a high school football coach and Marine veteran whose quiet act of prayer on the field ignited a national debate on religious freedom. Released in theaters in October 2024, Average Joe chronicles Kennedy's journey from a troubled childhood in foster care, through two decades of service in the Marine Corps, to his role as an assistant coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state. The movie not only highlights the personal toll of his legal battle but also underscores broader themes of resilience against institutional pressures, making it a compelling tale of one man's unyielding commitment to his beliefs.At the heart of Average Joe is Kennedy's practice of kneeling in silent prayer at midfield after football games—a brief, personal moment of gratitude that began in 2008 when he started coaching at Bremerton High. Initially unnoticed, this act drew attention as students and players voluntarily joined him over time. In 2015, the Bremerton School District, concerned about potential violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, directed Kennedy to stop praying in view of students, fearing it could be seen as government endorsement of religion by a public employee. Kennedy, a devout Christian and veteran who had served 20 years in the Marines, viewed this as an infringement on his free speech and free exercise rights. Despite the directive, he continued his post-game prayers, leading to his suspension and eventual non-renewal of his coaching contract.The film portrays the immense pressure Kennedy and his wife Denise faced during this ordeal. As a school employee herself, Denise encountered workplace tensions, and the couple endured public scrutiny, legal fees, and emotional strain. Yet, true to his Marine ethos of "never give up," Kennedy persisted. He sued the school district, arguing that his prayers were private expressions protected by the Constitution. The case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, wound its way through the courts, facing setbacks at the district and appellate levels before reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022. In a landmark 6-3 decision, the Court ruled in Kennedy's favor, holding that the district's actions violated his First Amendment rights and shifting toward a history-and-tradition approach for Establishment Clause claims. Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion emphasized that the government cannot suppress personal religious observance, affirming that Kennedy's prayers were neither coercive nor an official endorsement of religion. Kennedy was reinstated, though he coached only one more season before retiring, and the district settled with him for $1.78 million in 2023.Average Joe masterfully weaves these events into a narrative of triumph over adversity, portraying Kennedy not as a crusader imposing his faith but as an "average" American defending fundamental liberties. The movie's promotional materials highlight his Marine background as a source of his tenacity, drawing parallels to broader cultural battles over religious expression in public spaces.This theme of steadfast defense of individual rights resonates deeply with another Marine veteran, Russ McAlmond, who is currently campaigning for Oregon's U.S. Senate seat in the 2026 election. Born in Bremerton, Washington, McAlmond spent the first twelve years of his life in the same town where Kennedy's story unfolded years later. This striking coincidence is particularly meaningful: McAlmond had followed Kennedy's battle closely because it originated in his childhood hometown of Bremerton, forging a personal connection to the fight for religious freedom and constitutional rights. Like Kennedy, McAlmond served in the Marines, earning an honorable discharge after three years of active duty, including a 15-month overseas deployment. McAlmond has positioned his campaign as a fight for common-sense policies that prioritize individual human rights over extreme ideologies. Running as a Republican against incumbent Democrat Jeff Merkley, McAlmond emphasizes rural priorities such as healthcare access, public safety, and rebuilding institutional trust, drawing from his own experiences in a challenging family background to advocate for those from difficult starts.McAlmond's campaign has faced its own hurdles, echoing Kennedy's institutional pushback. In 2025, Facebook suspended his account multiple times—the latest for 30 days—amid efforts to share his message on free speech and human rights. This censorship, which McAlmond attributes to platform biases, has not deterred him; instead, it has galvanized support from fellow users and Oregonians who view it as an assault on open discourse. Posts in Facebook groups highlight strong community backing, with members decrying the suspensions and rallying around his candidacy. McAlmond's response mirrors Kennedy's resolve: he continues to campaign vigorously, using alternative platforms like his website and social media to connect with voters.Both Kennedy and McAlmond exemplify the Marine spirit of pushing back against forces that threaten core American values—freedom of religion for Kennedy and freedom of speech for McAlmond. The shared Bremerton connection adds an intriguing layer to their parallel stories: two Marines, tied by the same small Washington town, standing firm against pressures that seek to limit personal liberties. In an era where debates over individual rights versus collective policies often polarize, their narratives remind us of the importance of warriors who fight for constitutional protections. For Oregon, facing challenges from healthcare disparities to economic pressures, leaders like McAlmond could provide the tenacious advocacy needed to safeguard rights for all citizens, ensuring that personal freedoms remain unyielding in the face of adversity. As Average Joe illustrates, sometimes the most extraordinary victories come from ordinary people who refuse to kneel—except in prayer or principle.

"Average Joe" and Two Marines Who Fight Back

Fake news on social media. Social media manipulation and disinformation. Man using laptop computer to post on social media.

The Perils of QAnon: Republicans, Don't Let Conspiracy Theories Destroy Our Families, Our Party, and Our Chance to Win in OregonFellow Republicans, imagine the heartbreak of watching a loved one slip away—not to illness or tragedy, but to the dark grip of a baseless conspiracy that poisons their mind, shatters family bonds, and leaves behind a trail of anger, isolation, and despair. This is the devastating reality for too many American families torn apart by QAnon, a movement that preys on our deepest fears and turns good people into shadows of themselves. We've seen it rip through homes, ending marriages, estranging parents from children, and driving believers into depression and financial ruin—all while claiming to "save" us from imaginary evils. As we approach the May 19, 2026, Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Oregon, we face a gut-wrenching choice: nominate Jo Rae Perkins, whose unyielding embrace of QAnon has already cost us dearly, or rally behind a principled moderate and US Marine veteran like Russ McAlmond, who can unite us and fight for real conservative values without the toxic baggage. We can't afford to let QAnon hijack our party again—it's not just about losing elections; it's about losing our souls, our families, and our shot at reclaiming Oregon for the people who truly matter - the majority.&nbsp;QAnon isn't just a fringe theory—it's a soul-crushing lie that has no place in our Republican family. Born in 2017 from anonymous rants on shadowy online forums, it spins tales of a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping elites—mostly our political opponents—running child sex-trafficking rings and pulling the strings on global events. The mysterious "Q" promised Donald Trump would unleash "The Storm," sweeping away these phantoms in a blaze of justice. But years have passed, and what do we have? Nothing but broken promises, shattered lives, and a movement that has fueled violence, from the Pizzagate shooting to threats against innocents. Think of the families: Husbands turning from kind providers into rage-filled isolates, wives abandoning lifelong partners, children cutting ties with parents who choose paranoia over presence. One story after another reveals the quiet damage—believers losing jobs, squandering savings on doomsday preps, and demolishing relationships in pursuit of delusions that never materialize. Republicans, this isn't strength; it's tragedy. We're the party of family values, personal responsibility, and truth—why betray that legacy by putting faith in a hoax that destroys everything we hold dear? &nbsp;In Oregon, where non-affiliated voters and independents outnumber us at over 36%, embracing QAnon isn't just foolish—it's a betrayal of every hardworking family counting on us to deliver real change, not rage-fueled fantasies. It drowns out genuine cries for help, like those from actual victims of abuse, by flooding the airwaves with wild accusations that protect no one and harm everyone. As Republicans, we owe it to our children, our spouses, and our communities to reject this poison and reclaim our party from the radicals who would drag us into the abyss.Jo Rae Perkins' story is a heartbreaking cautionary tale we can't ignore. In 2020, after clinching our primary against Jeff Merkley, she proudly declared her allegiance to QAnon, chanting "Where we go one, we go all" like a mantra that sealed her fate—and ours. The media pounced, painting her—and by extension, all of us—as unhinged extremists, and independents fled in droves. The result? A soul-crushing defeat: 39.3% to Merkley's 56.9%, with our dreams of victory evaporating because QAnon turned voters away in disgust. She repeated the nightmare in 2022 against Ron Wyden, peddling election denialism and satanic elite myths, only to limp to 40.9% in another landslide loss. Perkins' campaigns were starved of funds, bereft of broad support, and ultimately futile, leaving Oregon Republicans heartbroken and humiliated once more. Now, in 2026, she's back, carrying the same destructive weight that has kept us sidelined since our last statewide win in 2002. We can't relive this pain—nominating her again would be a dagger to the heart of every patriot who yearns for a stronger Oregon.But there's hope, Republicans—a path out of this despair. Russ McAlmond, a dedicated financial planner, human rights advocate and moderate voice, stands ready to lead us forward. He rejects extremism, focusing instead on the issues that unite us: economic prosperity, family security, and community strength. Unlike Perkins, McAlmond can appeal to the independents we desperately need, bridging divides rather than widening them. Imagine the joy of victory—the pride in electing a senator who fights for us without the shadow of conspiracy hanging over every headline. By choosing McAlmond in the Oregon primaries we honor our families, protect our party from self-destruction, and reignite the fire of conservative principles that can actually win.Republicans, the stakes couldn't be higher. QAnon isn't just costing us elections—it's stealing our loved ones, fracturing our homes, and betraying the American dream we all cherish. Don't let Jo Rae Perkins drag us back into that abyss. Vote for Russell McAlmond in the primary, and let's heal, unite, and triumph together. Our families deserve better. Our party deserves better. Oregon deserves better. Let's make it happen—before it's too late.

The Perils of QAnon Conspiracy Theory for Republicans in Oregon

The Republican Party has long positioned itself as the defender of human rights in the United States, rooted in its founding principles of individual liberty, equality, and opposition to oppression. From its inception under Abraham Lincoln to its contemporary critiques of divisive policies like diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the GOP has consistently advocated for human dignity against collectivist ideologies that judge individuals based on group identities. This article explores the party's historical commitment to anti-slavery and civil rights reforms, debunks the notion of a "party switch" as a myth perpetuated by political opponents, and examines how modern Republicans continue this legacy by opposing what they view as discriminatory practices in today's society.Founding Principles: <strong 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);">Abraham Lincoln and the Anti-Slavery PlatformThe Republican Party was established on March 20, 1854, in Ripon, Wisconsin, as a direct response to the expansion of slavery, particularly through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which threatened to extend the institution into new territories. Unlike the Democratic Party, which strongly supported slavery and its spread, Republicans coalesced around a platform of free labor and human equality, drawing from anti-slavery Whigs, Free Soilers, and reformers. Abraham Lincoln, the party's first president elected in 1860, embodied this ethos. He opposed slavery's expansion, viewing it as a violation of the Declaration of Independence's principle that all men are created equal. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and his push for the abolition of slavery marked a pivotal stand for human rights, contrasting sharply with Democratic resistance. This anti-slavery stance was not merely rhetorical; it defined the party's early actions. Republicans saw slavery as incompatible with republican government, a system that dehumanized individuals based on racial group identity. The GOP's formation represented a moral earthquake in American politics, leading to Lincoln's victory and the eventual end of slavery through the Civil War. Reconstruction Achievements: <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);">The 13th, 14th, and 15th AmendmentsFollowing the Civil War, Republicans led the charge for constitutional reforms that enshrined human rights for all Americans. The 13th Amendment (1865), abolishing slavery, passed with overwhelming Republican support in Congress, while Democrats largely opposed it. The 14th Amendment (1868) granted citizenship and equal protection under the law, and the 15th Amendment (1870) secured voting rights regardless of race. These Reconstruction Amendments were championed by Republicans, who overcame Democratic obstruction to extend freedoms to formerly enslaved people. Democrats, particularly in the South, resisted these measures fiercely, associating with groups like the Ku Klux Klan and enacting Jim Crow laws to maintain racial hierarchies. Republicans, conversely, supported anti-lynching laws, desegregation of the armed forces, and opposed poll taxes—efforts that underscored their commitment to individual rights over group-based oppression. This era solidified the GOP as the party that advanced unprecedented civil rights legislation, with no equivalent in modern politics.Debunking the "Party Switch" Myth: Continuity in Republican PrinciplesA common narrative suggests that the Republican and Democratic parties "switched" positions on civil rights in the mid-20th century, with racist Southern Democrats becoming Republicans. This claim is widely regarded as a myth in conservative scholarship, lacking historical evidence and serving as a tool to obscure Democratic culpability in racial injustices. The Republican Party never adopted pro-slavery or segregationist stances; it was Democrats who founded the Confederacy, established the KKK, and opposed key civil rights bills like the 1957 and 1960 Acts, which Republicans under Eisenhower pushed through despite Democratic filibusters. Even the 1964 Civil Rights Act saw higher proportional support from Republicans than Democrats. Figures like Strom Thurmond were rare switchers, but most segregationist Democrats remained in their party, with leaders like Robert Byrd rising to prominence. The GOP's Southern gains in the 1970s and 1980s stemmed from economic conservatism and national figures like Nixon and Reagan, not racial appeals. This continuity refutes any "switch," affirming Republicans' enduring role in human rights.Contemporary Battles: Opposing DEI and Collectivist JudgmentsTodayRepublicans continue their human rights legacy by challenging policies they argue perpetuate group-based discrimination, akin to historical slavery's collectivism. DEI initiatives are criticized as racist and antisemitic, dividing people by identity and fostering hostility toward certain groups, including Jews. Conservative analyses highlight how DEI promotes racial quotas and victimhood hierarchies, undermining merit and individual rights. Republican-led efforts, such as dismantling DEI programs in states and federal agencies, aim to restore color-blind equality, echoing the party's anti-slavery roots. Critics argue DEI exacerbates antisemitism on campuses, as seen in post-October 7, 2023, incidents, and harms civil discourse by prioritizing oppression narratives over unity. This stance positions the GOP as the modern guardian against ideologies that judge individuals by group affiliation, much like Democrats did in the 1800s.Conclusion: A Legacy of LibertyFrom Lincoln's anti-slavery platform to the Reconstruction Amendments and today's fight against DEI, the Republican Party has consistently championed human rights by prioritizing individual dignity over collectivist divisions. The myth of a "party switch" fails under scrutiny, revealing a continuous thread of GOP advocacy for equality. As A.J. Catsimatidis of the New York State Republican Party notes, the GOP has fought for rights across all groups, from abolishing slavery to fostering individual freedoms today. This enduring commitment underscores the Republican Party's role as America's true party of human rights.

McAlmond for US Senate Oregon

Blog

Power is Morally Neutral

Religious Freedom in Oregon

Defeat Merkley - Only McAlmond Has a Path

"Average Joe" and Two Marines Who Fight Back

The Perils of QAnon Conspiracy Theory for Republicans in ...

Republicans: Champions of Human Rights in American History