Blog

United States Republican Party Elephant Logo.

Here is the speech on President's Day 2026. Both Russ McAlmond and Ed Diehl spoke at this event in Klamath Falls with strongly favorable reactions from local Republicans.&nbsp; "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Klamath County Republican Party, Good evening, and Happy President's Day! Thank you for your kind invitation to speak at this wonderful dinner. We are here on February 16, 2026, gathered in this beautiful corner of Oregon to celebrate the unique individuals who shaped our nation—and to draw fresh inspiration from their legacy for the battles we face today.My name is Russ McAlmond and I stand before you as a proud Republican candidate for the United States Senate from our great state of Oregon. Together, we are called to reclaim the bold, principled spirit that once defined the Republican Party and will define it again.Tonight, let us turn our eyes to one of our best presidents: Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president, a man whose unyielding moral vision lit the path to freedom for millions and changed our country forever.Born in a log cabin, forged in hardship, Lincoln confronted one of the darkest stains on America's soul—slavery. When the nation stood on the brink of dissolution, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, striking the chains from enslaved people and declaring that no human being could ever rightfully own another.He acted not out of fleeting politics, but out of a profound moral conviction: that every person possesses infinite value under God and the law, rooted in the sacred words of our Declaration of Independence—"All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Even government cannot take our human rights away from us. &nbsp;Remember the stark reality of his time: The Democratic Party of that era was the party of slavery, fiercely defending it as a constitutional right, a moral necessity, even a benevolent institution. Democrats in Congress and throughout the South fought bitterly to preserve this evil form of collectivism that was inherited from the Old World, not the New One.But Lincoln and the young Republican Party rose in defiance. Founded in 1854 to halt slavery's spread, we stood for human rights, dignity, and equality for every individual—not as members of favored or disfavored groups, but as unique human beings created in God's image. We denied collectivism which was a European value, not American.And our commitment did not end with victory on the battlefield. Republican majorities in Congress drove through the transformative amendments that redefined America:The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery forever. The 14th Amendment, securing equal protection and due process for all. The 15th Amendment, guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race. These were not mere laws; they were moral triumphs that lifted our nation closer to its founding promise. Democrats offered almost no support—opposing these measures with overwhelming majorities. Yet Republicans prevailed - making the party the most human rights oriented party in the history of the country. We are the party of equal rights for everyone, free speech and religion for all, and the right to bear arms for self-defense in an increasingly dangerous world. We are on the right side of history – Democrats are not. In the deepest sense, Abraham Lincoln was the original Ethical Individualism Republican. As I explore in my book, Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy, this is a practical, simple and truth-based philosophy for human relations that insists we treat every person as a unique individual of equal worth to all other human beings. Ethical Individualism is utterly opposed to the collectivism promoted today by the Democratic Party and people like Tina Kotek and Jeff Merkley. Lincoln lived this truth. He rejected the poison of group judgmentalism: the dehumanizing habit of labeling entire races, classes, or peoples as inferior or collectively guilty. Slavery was an expression of that evil—stripping individuals of their uniqueness, reducing them to stereotypes and inferior value that dehumanized them. My fellow Republicans, this is our heritage—a shining legacy of being a champion of human rights based on the individual against every form of collectivist tyranny. Look around: The modern Democratic Party pushes a corrosive European collectivism that sorts Americans into rigid groups, elevating some while diminishing others through identity politics and DEI policies. They judge people not by who they are as individuals, but by their category—race, gender, background—fostering division, resentment, and endless grievance. Karl Marx was a European who saw people as groups and promoted class warfare against wealthy people. Today, Jeff Merkley and Bernie Sanders do the same thing. This is not moral progress even though they call themselves “progressives”; it is moral regression to the very group judgmentalism that fueled history's worst injustices – including the Holocaust. It denies the infinite uniqueness of every human soul and erodes the equality Lincoln died to secure. It opposes the founding values of our Republic once again making it un-American just as slavery was. But we Republicans will stop this regression by Democrats as well in the 21st Century. We are the party of the unique individual—the hardworking farmer here in Klamath County, the innovative entrepreneur in Portland, the veteran who served with honor, the parent raising the next generation – all unique individuals who can only be judged by their individuality. Guided by Ethical Individualism, we fight for policies that empower every person: lower taxes to let families keep more of what they earn, secure borders to protect our communities and keep them safe, schools that teach true history and real skills, defense of the unborn, support for law enforcement including ICE officers, and laws that always recognize the equal value and uniqueness of all Americans. As your next U.S. Senator from Oregon, I pledge to carry Lincoln's torch forward. We will stand against division, reject group favoritism, and build a nation where every American—regardless of background—is judged by the content of their character, free to pursue their God-given potential without government coercion or collective blame. I pledge to fight against the Democratic Socialists that Jeff Merkley aligns with who want to drag us backwards, not only on human relations and freedoms, but economically as well. They are promoting a failed economic system that has never worked in world history. Socialism is collectivist and based on classes of human beings. Capitalism is based on allowing the individual to pursue their creative dreams. And this is why socialism always fails and capitalism is always successful. The Republican Party that freed the slaves can once again lead America to a brighter, more united future – a Golden Age of Human Relations in our country. Together, we will make it happen. God bless you all. God bless Oregon. And God bless the United States of America! Thank you."

Russ McAlmond Speaks with Klamath County Republicans

Elderly male voter with bulletin in hands comes to voting booth

In the upcoming 2026 election for Oregon's U.S. Senate seat, voters face a clear choice between Russ McAlmond, a Republican candidate and proud U.S. Marine veteran who staunchly supports Voter ID requirements to protect election integrity, and incumbent Senator Jeff Merkley, who has consistently opposed such measures. McAlmond's commitment to commonsense reforms aligns with the overwhelming majority of Americans who recognize the need for secure voting processes. By contrast, Merkley's resistance to Voter ID, evident in his co-sponsorship of legislation aimed at blocking reforms like the SAVE America Act, overlooks the broad consensus on this issue. As Oregonians prepare to cast their ballots, embracing Voter ID under leaders like McAlmond will ensure that our democracy remains strong, fair, and reserved for eligible citizens.Voter ID enjoys immense popularity across the United States, reflecting a shared understanding that simple safeguards enhance trust in elections. Recent polls demonstrate that 83% of Americans favor requiring government-issued photo ID to vote, including 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats. This support extends across demographics, with 76% of African Americans endorsing Voter ID requirements. These figures underscore that Voter ID is not a partisan tool but a widely accepted standard for maintaining the sanctity of the ballot box. McAlmond's advocacy for Voter ID resonates with this national sentiment, positioning him as a candidate who listens to the people rather than adhering to outdated opposition.At its core, voting is one of the most sacred rights in our democracy, a privilege that must be exclusively exercised by U.S. citizens to preserve the voice of the American people. The Constitution entrusts citizens with the power to shape our government, and allowing non-citizens to participate undermines this foundational principle. Voter ID serves as a straightforward mechanism to verify citizenship, ensuring that every vote cast reflects the will of those who are legally entitled to influence our nation's direction. McAlmond understands this imperative, championing policies that protect this right for Oregonians and all Americans, while Merkley's stance risks diluting the value of citizenship in our electoral process. Moreover, requiring ID for voting aligns with everyday practices where identification is mandatory for far less critical activities. Americans routinely present photo ID to board a plane, purchase alcohol, open a bank account, or even pick up a prescription at the pharmacy. These transactions, while important, pale in comparison to the act of voting, which determines the leaders who guide our country. If ID is essential for these routine matters, it stands to reason that it should be required for something as vital as electing our representatives. McAlmond's support for Voter ID acknowledges this logical consistency, promoting a system that is both secure and familiar to voters.This approach is not unique to the United States; most developed countries around the world mandate Voter ID to safeguard their elections, demonstrating that such requirements are effective and uncontroversial globally. As of 2021, 176 countries or jurisdictions required photo ID for voting, including all 27 European Union nations. Nations like Germany, Canada, India, and Mexico enforce strict ID rules without compromising voter turnout, proving that Voter ID enhances rather than hinders democratic participation. There is no legitimate reason for the U.S. to lag behind these standards, especially when our elections face increasing scrutiny. McAlmond's vision brings America in line with these international best practices, fostering greater confidence in our system. The urgency of this issue was highlighted just yesterday when the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAVE America Act, a bill that mandates photo ID and proof of citizenship for federal elections. This legislation, which now heads to the Senate, represents a pivotal step toward nationwide election security. As a senator, McAlmond would fight to advance such reforms, ensuring Oregon's voice contributes to a more robust democracy. In contrast, Merkley's opposition to similar measures could stall this progress, leaving our elections vulnerable.Oregon deserves a senator who prioritizes election integrity and represents the commonsense values of its people. Russ McAlmond's unwavering support for Voter ID will protect our democratic process, honor the exclusivity of citizenship, and align the U.S. with global standards. By electing McAlmond, Oregonians can secure a future where every vote counts and is counted fairly.

Voter ID? Absolutely Yes

Oregon state of United States flag waving cloudy sky background

Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow Oregonians, friends, and neighbors—thank you for being here today. My name is Russ McAlmond, and I'm running for the United States Senate because I believe Oregon deserves better. We deserve a senator who listens to all of us, not just the extremes. For too long, our state has been represented by voices that divide us rather than unite us. Jeff Merkley, our current senator, has aligned himself with the Democratic Socialists, pushing policies that are out of step with the hardworking families, farmers, small business owners, and everyday folks who make Oregon the incredible place it is. I'm here to offer a different path—one rooted in common sense, individual freedom, and equality for every American not only special groups.&nbsp;Let me start with a hard truth: In Oregon, Republicans are a minority party. We know that. The numbers don't lie - there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans registered in the state of Oregon. Independents and non-affiliated voters, or NAVs as we call them, make up almost 40% of our electorate. They're the independents who think for themselves, the folks who've grown tired of party labels and just want results. Without their support, we simply can't win a statewide election. That's why this campaign isn't just for Republicans. It's for everyone who believes in fiscal responsibility, strong borders, energy independence, legal immigration and protecting our natural resources without crippling our economy.Jeff Merkley? He's not that senator - and hasn't been for years.&nbsp;He's extreme—voting in lockstep with the far-left agenda that prioritizes socialist experiments over Oregon's real needs. Whether it's his support for dehumanizing the police, open borders without vetting that strain our communities, men competing against women, collectivism, or massive government deficit spending that fuels inflation and hurts working families, Merkley is out of touch with the majority of Oregonians. He cozies up to the Democratic Socialists in New York, but what about the loggers in rural Oregon, the tech workers in Portland, or the families in Bend struggling with high costs? They want practical solutions, not ideological extremism. That's why our message should appeal broadly—to Republicans, yes, but also to moderate voters and even conservative Democrats who feel abandoned by their own party. If you're a Democrat who desires Voter ID, strong borders, pro-Second Amendment, or just plain fed up with the extreme shift left and hate in your party, I want your vote. If you're an independent who's seen enough of the status quo, join us. We're talking about lower taxes to keep more money in your pocket, better schools without indoctrination, and treating you as the unique individual you are.&nbsp;We're about securing our elections, supporting our veterans, and ensuring that Oregon's beauty—from the coast to the Cascades—is preserved for generations without extreme environmental mandates that kill jobs and restrict who can enjoy our beautiful state.&nbsp;But to win, we Republicans must do something different this time. We can't keep fighting the same battles the same way. <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);">Every election, Democrats attack us on human equality and rights, painting us as the villains. It's a tired, hateful and false script - and it's time we reclaim our true heritage.The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln—the man who freed the slaves and preserved the Union. We were the anti-slavery party when Democrats were the pro-slavery party. It was Republicans who pushed through the 13th Amendment to end slavery, the 14th to guarantee equal protection under the law, and the 15th to secure voting rights for all men, regardless of race with almost zero support from Democrats.&nbsp; The Republican Party was founded as a human rights party with the best track record for equality and human rights of any political party in the nation.&nbsp;Meanwhile, Democrats were enacting Jim Crow laws, enforcing segregation, forming the KKK, and resisting civil rights at every turn. This is the truth about the Democratic Party's history on Civil Rights that they never want to talk about.&nbsp;The United States was founded on the idea that every person has God-given rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—that no state or collective can take away. That is what made the USA unique from most other nations - it is the true definition of Americanism. This also why the Republican Party was the party opposed to slavery.&nbsp;Collectivism by Democrats? That's a European import, a left-wing ideology that led to the horrors of the Soviet Union, where the state crushed the individual for the so-called greater good. In leftist systems, individual rights are always subordinate to the state—your freedoms sacrificed on the altar of equity or the collective will. This is what Jeff Merkley supports and wants Oregon to become - collectivist.&nbsp;As Republicans, we stand for the individual as our founders did: your right to speak freely, worship as you choose, own private property, and defend yourself. We fight for the unborn child's right to life, for parents' rights in education, and for workers' rights to keep what they earn without excessive government interference by higher taxation and regulations.&nbsp;Jeff Merkley and his allies talk a big game on rights, but their vision is collectivist—group identities over personal merit, government mandates over personal choice. That's not equality; that's control and authoritariarnism - that is European-style collective leftism.&nbsp;And it's not what Oregon needs - or wants.&nbsp;Imagine an Oregon where we prioritize individual opportunity: scholarships based on need and merit, not race or group; criminal justice that protects victims while reforming fairly; and immigration policies that welcome legal newcomers who contribute and are self-sufficient. Legal immigration extended only to those who agree with our founding values of individual freedom.&nbsp;That's the human rights agenda we offer—one that lifts everyone by empowering the individual, not dividing us into collectives and pitting us against each other.&nbsp;Friends, this election is about more than party lines. It's about reclaiming Oregon's spirit of independence, innovation, and fairness. Jeff Merkley represents an extreme minority - a senator who's more at home in socialist circles than in our timber towns, fishing communities or even the Portland suburbs.&nbsp;I represent you: the everyday Oregonian who wants a government that serves, not dictates. So, I ask you today: Whether you're Republican, independent, NAV, or a disillusioned Democrat, stand with me. Volunteer, donate, talk to your neighbors. Together, we can send a message to Washington that Oregon is ready for change. Let's elect a senator who fights for individual rights, unites our state, and puts Oregon first.Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the great state of Oregon!

A Speech for All Oregonians

The USA that was founded on a unique concept among all nations that individual rights are superior to government of any kind. Historically, most nations put government and aristocratic power ahead of the individual rights of its citizens. Many world-wide governments today do the same thing. It is this repect for individual rights that made the USA the most prosperous and successful country in the world.&nbsp;Individual rights as interpreted in the framework of Ethical Individualism posits that every human being possesses infinite and equal intrinsic value, not derived from any group affiliation, belief system, or external hierarchy, but from their inherent existence as a unique individual. This is affirmed in the USA Declaration &nbsp;of Independence that we are all created "equal."&nbsp;This individual rights philosophy rejects the notion of superior or inferior persons based on religion, gender, ethnicity, or any collective identity; instead, it affirms that all individuals are sovereign entities with inalienable rights, including the freedoms of religion, speech, and self-determination. <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);">No one can be judged or valued by their membership in a group—each person stands alone in their moral worth and agency. <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);">From this USA vantage point, doctrinal elements within Islam that advocate for the establishment of theocracies over democracies and the domination of other faiths reveal a profound incompatibility with these core tenets of individual rights and autonomy. Such aspirations prioritize religious supremacy and collective conformity over individual autonomy, undermining freedom of religion, speech, and the equality of all humans. <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);">This article explores these tensions, arguing that true human flourishing demands the protection of individual rights against any system that seeks to impose divine law as the ultimate authority. At the heart of the Ethical Individualism (USA) position on individual rights lies the inalienable right to freedom of religion, which allows each person to pursue their spiritual path—or none at all—without coercion or penalty. <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);">This right is not a privilege granted by society or state but an extension of the infinite value of the individual, ensuring that beliefs remain a personal domain. However, interpretations of Islam that envision a global caliphate or theocratic governance, where Sharia law serves as the foundational legal system, inherently conflict with this freedom. <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 theocracy, religious doctrine becomes the state's enforcing mechanism, often mandating adherence to Islamic principles for all citizens, regardless of their individual convictions. Historical and contemporary examples, such as the governance models in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, illustrate how non-Muslims or dissenting Muslims face restrictions on worship, conversion, or public expression of alternative faiths. <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);">Ethical Individualism views this as a violation: no religion, including Islam, has the authority to dominate the spiritual landscape, as doing so diminishes the infinite worth of individuals who hold differing beliefs. Freedom of religion, in this perspective, is absolute and cannot be subordinated to a collective religious ideal; to impose theocracy is to treat non-believers as lesser entities, contradicting the equality of all humans.<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);">Equally incompatible is the theocratic impulse with freedom of speech, a cornerstone of Ethical Individualism that empowers individuals to express ideas, critique power structures, and engage in open discourse without fear of reprisal. Speech is the vehicle through which individuals assert their autonomy and challenge dogmas that might otherwise stifle personal growth. <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);">Yet, doctrines within Islam that seek domination over other religions often include prohibitions against blasphemy or apostasy, which can extend to severe punishments under theocratic rule. For instance, questioning core tenets of the faith or advocating for secular alternatives might be deemed offensive to the divine order, leading to censorship or legal repercussions. <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);">From an Ethical Individualist standpoint, this suppresses the individual's right to intellectual freedom, treating speech as a threat to religious hegemony rather than a fundamental human expression. No group—religious or otherwise—can claim superiority in value to justify silencing others; each person's voice carries equal weight, infinite in its potential to contribute to truth-seeking. <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 prioritizing the sanctity of religious doctrine over open dialogue, such theocratic aspirations erode the marketplace of ideas essential for individual and societal progress, fostering conformity at the expense of personal liberty. <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 equality of all human beings, irrespective of gender, further exposes the rift between theocratic Islamic ideals and Ethical Individualism. This philosophy insists that women and men share identical infinite value and rights, including the pursuit of dreams without artificial barriers imposed by tradition or law. <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);">However, certain interpretations of Sharia in theocratic contexts often encode gender hierarchies, such as unequal inheritance rights, restrictions on women's mobility or testimony in court, or mandates for veiling that symbolize submission. These elements stem from a worldview where religious roles define worth, potentially elevating Muslim men as guardians of faith and diminishing women's autonomy. <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);">Ethical Individualism rejects this outright: no human can be deemed superior or inferior based on faith or sex; to do so groups individuals into categories of judgment, violating the principle that people must be evaluated solely as unique beings. In a democracy grounded in individual rights, women can aspire to leadership, education, or personal fulfillment without religious oversight. <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);">A theocracy, by contrast, risks enforcing divine mandates that treat gender as a divinely ordained inequality, clashing with the inalienable right of every woman to equality and self-determination. Moreover, the desire for domination over all other religions, as articulated in some Islamic eschatological visions or calls for jihad against non-believers, stands in stark opposition to Ethical Individualism's rejection of group-based superiority. <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);">This philosophy posits that no collective—be it a religion, nation, or ideology—holds infinite value; only individuals do. Aspirations for a world under Islamic rule imply a hierarchy where Muslims are positioned as morally or spiritually elevated, justifying expansionist policies or conversion efforts that overlook the equal worth of adherents to other faiths or none. <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 democratic societies, pluralism thrives because governance derives from the consent of individuals, not divine command, allowing diverse beliefs to coexist without one claiming dominion. Theocratic dominance, however, risks viewing non-Muslims as obstacles to a godly order, potentially leading to discrimination or forced assimilation. <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);">Ethical Individualism counters this by affirming that every person's value is infinite and unranked; to pursue religious supremacy is to deny this equality, reducing individuals to representatives of inferior groups rather than sovereign entities.<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 conclusion, from the lens of American founding values of equality, the push within Islamic doctrines for theocracies and religious domination fundamentally undermines the freedoms of religion and speech, as well as the equality of all humans, including women. <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 elevating collective religious identity over individual autonomy, such systems impose hierarchies that contradict the infinite, equal value of every person. True ethical progress demands democracies that safeguard inalienable rights, where no group can judge or dominate another. <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);">Only in such environments can individuals flourish without the shadow of imposed superiority, honoring the profound truth that humanity's worth resides not in faiths or collectives, but in each irreplaceable soul.

Islam Versus Individual Rights

Russian House of Soviets, Lenin on Moscow Square. St. Petersburg

The United States was founded on the principle that every person is a unique individual endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution exist to protect these individual rights from government overreach and to ensure that each citizen can live freely, pursue their own dreams, and be judged on their own merits rather than as part of a group or class. Leftism, by contrast, is inherently collectivist and group oriented. It views people primarily as members of groups—classes, races, economic categories—rather than as distinct individuals. This fundamental difference makes leftism incompatible with American values. Society is either individual based or group based - classes of people - or all unqiue individiuals.&nbsp;History, particularly the former Soviet Union (and others), demonstrates what happens when collectivist ideology gains full control: the state is placed above the individual, personal rights are sacrificed, and dissenters are crushed. The same trajectory threatens America when leftist ideas gain dominance.American Individualism vs. Leftist CollectivismAmerica’s founding documents are explicit: governments are instituted among men to secure individual rights, and when government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. The Bill of Rights protects speech, religion, assembly, property, and due process for the individual—not for collectives or classes. The American Dream is built on the belief that any person, regardless of background, can rise through their own effort, ingenuity, and character. This celebrates uniqueness and personal responsibility.Leftism rejects this vision. It sees society as composed of competing groups locked in struggle—oppressors vs. oppressed, bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, privileged vs. marginalized. Individuals are reduced to their group identity and expected to serve the collective good as defined by the state or the ruling ideology. Personal dreams, ambitions, and differences are subordinated to the needs of the group or the “greater good.” This is the exact opposite of the American principle that each person has the right to pursue happiness in their own way, free from coercion.The former Soviet Union: The True Face of Leftist CollectivismThe Soviet Union provides the clearest historical proof of what leftist collectivism produces when it achieves total power. Far from a system designed to “take care of the poor” or protect human rights, it was a totalitarian one-party state that demanded absolute obedience. The Communist Party placed the collective (the state, the proletariat, the revolution) above every individual right. People were treated as interchangeable cogs in the machinery of the state—factory workers, farmers, intellectuals—all required to serve the central plan.Those who refused to conform were labeled enemies of the people. Political prisoners filled the gulags. Independent farmers (kulaks) were liquidated during forced collectivization, causing mass starvation. Dissenters were imprisoned, executed, or sent to psychiatric hospitals. The state decided what speech was allowed, what art was permitted, what jobs people held, and even what thoughts were acceptable. Individual uniqueness was erased; deviation from the collective line was punished with violence.This was not an aberration. It was the logical outcome of an ideology that prioritizes the collective over the individual and grants the state unlimited power to enforce that priority.Modern American Leftism Follows the Same Collectivist LogicToday’s American left—whether democratic socialists, progressives who embrace identity politics, or those pushing ever-expanding government control—operates from the same collectivist foundation. They speak of the “warmth of collectivism,” community solidarity, and group equity, but the underlying view is that people should be categorized and treated according to their group status rather than as unique individuals. Policies are designed around group outcomes, group privileges, group reparations, and group-based justice rather than equal protection of individual rights.When government seizes more control over healthcare, education, speech, energy, guns, or the economy in the name of collective fairness, it necessarily diminishes individual liberty - every time. When dissent from leftist orthodoxy—on gender, race, climate, or economics—is punished through cancellation, deplatforming, legal harassment, or institutional pressure, it mirrors the intolerance of collectivist regimes. The goal is not charity or voluntary help; it is power. Leftism in power seeks to centralize authority so the state (or the party in control of the state) can dictate how resources are distributed, what ideas are acceptable, and how people must live.This trajectory leads toward the same destination as the Soviet Union: one-party dominance, suppression of dissent, and the reduction of free individuals to compliant members of the collective.Collectivism Creates Division, Not UnityIronically, while leftism claims to fight division, its group-based worldview recreates the rigid class structures the American founders rejected. Europe’s history was defined by inherited classes and estates; America was built on the promise of breaking free from Europe's class structure. Leftism reintroduces division by sorting people into permanent victim and oppressor categories, then demanding that government enforce group hierarchies and privileges. This is the opposite of celebrating the independence and uniqueness of every individual and protecting their right to be different.True American unity comes from shared commitment to individual rights and equal opportunity under the law—not from enforced sameness or group-based outcomes.Leftism is unAmerican because it is collectivist at its core. It subordinates the individual to the group, the state, or the “collective good,” treating people as interchangeable parts rather than unique human beings with the God-given right to pursue their own happiness. The former Soviet Union showed the end result: totalitarian control, violence against dissenters, and the destruction of personal liberty. American leftism follows the same ideological path, seeking ever-greater state power under the banner of equity and solidarity. The founders understood that liberty resides in the individual, not in the collective. Any ideology that reverses that priority is fundamentally at odds with what America stands for. To remain American is to defend individual rights above all else—against every form of collectivism that would reduce free people to cogs in someone else’s wheel. Leftism is cleary unAmerican and any politician who embraces it is anti-American - not a person who supports the founding values - that made us the most free and successful country in world history.&nbsp;

Leftism Is UnAmerican

hands forming a heart shape with sunset silhouette

In the turbulent landscape of American politics, where divisions run deep and rhetoric often escalates into vitriol, there is an urgent call to "stop the hate." This imperative is not merely a slogan but a profound necessity for healing a nation fractured by polarization. Hate, in its many forms, undermines the very fabric of democracy, turning fellow citizens into enemies based on superficial differences. To foster a more united society, we must reject judgments rooted in group identities and instead embrace the inherent worth of each individual. This article explores how racism, religism, and politicism perpetuate hate, drawing on the principles of Ethical Individualism as championed by the Center for Human Equality, founded by Russ McAlmond. By celebrating the uniqueness of every human being, we can move beyond group-based hatred and build a politics of respect and understanding.At the heart of the problem is the tendency to define and judge people solely by group affiliations. Racism, the prejudice based on skin color or ethnicity, has long scarred American history, from slavery to modern-day disparities in justice and opportunity such as antisemitism. It reduces individuals to stereotypes, ignoring their personal stories, talents, and contributions. But perhaps the most insidious in today's political arena is politicism: the act of judging or demonizing someone based on their political party affiliation. In an era of red-versus-blue tribalism, Americans increasingly view those across the aisle not as compatriots with differing views, but as moral adversaries unworthy of empathy. This group-think mentality echoes throughout social media echo chambers and cable news cycles, where nuanced debate gives way to blanket condemnations. No human being can be judged or defined solely on the basis of skin color (racism), religion (religism), or political party (politicism). McAlmond's vision of Ethical Individualism posits that true equality arises from recognizing and honoring individual dignity, rather than lumping people into categories for convenience or conflict. Ethical Individualism encourages us to engage with others on a personal level, appreciating their distinct experiences, ideas, and aspirations. It rejects the collectivist pitfalls that have plagued societies, insisting that group judgments are not only inaccurate but fundamentally immoral. By focusing on the individual, we dismantle the barriers that hate erects, allowing for genuine dialogue and collaboration.History provides stark warnings about the dangers of judging by group. The Holocaust stands as one of humanity's greatest tragedies, where millions were persecuted and murdered not for their actions as individuals, but for belonging to ethnic or religious groups deemed inferior by the Nazi regime. This atrocity was built on a foundation of group hatred, where propaganda dehumanized entire populations, making mass violence seem justifiable. Similar patterns appear in other dark chapters, such as the Rwandan genocide, the Armenian Genocide, or even America's own internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. In each case, group judgmentalism—labeling people as "the other" based on arbitrary categories—led to unimaginable suffering. In contemporary American politics, echoes of this mindset manifest in partisan witch hunts, where politicians and pundits stoke fears of "radical" groups to rally their bases. Such tactics not only erode trust but risk escalating into broader societal conflicts, reminding us that the line between heated rhetoric and real harm is perilously thin.To counteract this, we must actively celebrate the uniqueness of every human being by stopping group hatred and group judgmentalism in politics. This begins with personal reflection: challenging our own biases and seeking out diverse perspectives. In the public sphere, it means advocating for policies and discourse that prioritize individual rights over collective labels. Media outlets, educators, and leaders can play pivotal roles by highlighting stories of cross-partisan friendships and collaborations, demonstrating that shared humanity transcends political divides. The Center for Human Equality offer a blueprint, through programs that educate on ethical Individualism and foster community dialogues aimed at bridging gaps. Imagine a political landscape where debates focus on ideas rather than identities—where a conservative and a liberal can disagree vehemently yet respect each other's intrinsic worth. This vision is not utopian; it is essential for sustaining a healthy democracy. In conclusion, stopping the hate in American politics requires a paradigm shift from group-based judgments to ethical Individualism. By heeding the message we affirm that every person deserves respect as a unique individual, free from the shackles of racism, religism, or politicism. History teaches us the perils of failing to do so, from the Holocaust to countless other tragedies born of division. Let us commit to celebrating human uniqueness, transforming our politics into a force for unity rather than enmity. Only then can America truly live up to its ideals of liberty and justice for all.