Where Is The Outcry Now?

This will not be a long article. I intend to say what I have to say, and be done with it. Comment however you like, though be aware that I will delete those that do not add to the discussion in any constructive way. Fair warning has been given.

Here are a few scenarios to consider.

Egypt discovers tunnels under its borders and under Cairo around the same time the country comes under attack by targeted missile strikes, mortar fire, and suicide bombers. They discover it to be the work of one specific group, and bring a resolution to the United Nations to denounce the group as radical and terrorist.

China discovers that it also has tunnels under its borders, and under Beijing, around the time that it also comes under similar attack. It is discovered to be the work of the same group as Egypt, and they also move to have the UN declare this group radical and terrorist.

Kuwait also comes under attack by the same group attacking the other two countries, and finds the same form of entry points. They join the call for the UN to condemn the group's actions.


It is documented that this group fires indiscriminately with their mortars, targets intentionally civilian transport with their guided missiles, and intentionally sends suicide bombers into densely populated civilian areas for maximum death counts.

It is also documented that this group launches their missiles from civilian populated areas in its own country. Furthermore, they launch mortars from atop civilian homes, hospitals, orphanages and schools.

All of these actions by this group are designated as war crimes when in a state of war. When not in an officially declared war, these actions are recognized as being acts of terror and crimes against humanity.


Even with the brand new requirement for two-thirds majority adopted by the UN on December 6, 2018, the three countries above would likely see their resolution pass, right?

Of course they would. Anyone with half a brain could look at the group's actions and say "That is not right. That is not acceptable. That is an attack on a sovereign country, and it all amounts to acts of terror."


Now, let us further understand that it is also documented fact that this same group has declared that they wish to set up their own caliphate. They wish to see all Arab countries under their rule, and then subjugate the rest of the world.

In this case, it is natural to assume that since these attacks were carried out against two Arab countries and another recognized world power, that their resolution would receive overwhelming support from other world powers and the Arab world as a whole, right?

Again, no sane person could claim that this could be in any way wrong.


But what happened on December 6, 2018, just twenty minutes after the vote requiring a two-thirds majority to pass any resolution within the United Nations?

The nation of Israel, itself a target of indiscriminate mortar fire, targeted missile attacks, and suicide bombers, failed to see its resolution pass. This resolution would have recognized the group known as Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Hamas. The group that has sent suicide bombers into Israeli marketplaces. The group that has fired mortars into empty fields and crowded city streets alike. The group that has recently acquired guided missiles from an officially unknown source and used them to target transit. The group that has gone on record in the past as denouncing various Arab countries such as Egypt and Kuwait as being too immoral and therefore worthy of being labeled enemies.

That Hamas.

The resolution failed to achieve two thirds majority because every Arab country in the region; each one having been threatened by Hamas in past statements; voted against declaring them a terrorist organization.

It failed to achieve two thirds majority because countries such as China and Russia; two countries who have seen their interests in the region threatened by the group's activities; still refused to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization.

The resolution failed because every Arab nation in the region has already stated; whether recently or in times past; that they desire to see the only Jewish sovereign state on the planet wiped from the face of the Earth.

The resolution failed because China and Russia, along with several other Communist and Socialist states, have certain interests within the Arabian and African regions. Though this is currently mere conjecture, it is likely that the missiles Hamas now possesses originated from one or both of these countries.


Had Hamas taken these actions against any other Arab state; or against any other world power (barring perhaps the US and the UK); they would have been denounced.

Their actions would have sparked a cry of outrage from the world at large, and certainly from the world's social justice warriors.

Their actions would have placed the group upon a pyre built by public outcry, and lit aflame by the United Nations.


So I ask you...

Where is the outcry now?

Life Or The Party

There are things in this world that I do not understand. Most of the time, I am fine with this. When I am not fine with this is when a double standard is very obviously in effect. For example, a group supposedly standing for something in slogan that they refuse to stand for in action.

Take for example this latest act of insanity: A "Right To Life" group that will not support a pro-life candidate because he or she is not a member of either major political party. You read that correctly.

The slogan above should, perhaps, read: "Support Pro-Life Candidates (if they are major party members)!"

The current gubernatorial race in Oregon could best be described as a train-wreck for the Sanctity of Life Movement. The candidate the only Right To Life PAC in the state backed, Greg Wooldridge, lost... And miserably, based upon the numbers. Just over sixty-three thousand for the ORTL candidate, and more than one hundred forty-four thousand for the Primary winner, Knute Buehler. The ORTL lost its gamble by more than twenty percent.

I am not knocking the three-time leader of the Blue Angels Squadron, by any means; however it seems to me that the ORTL backed the wrong candidate. Allow me to elaborate. In every state in these United States, there is generally a mistrust of outsiders wishing to take public office. The hopeful could be a living saint, and still the natural-born residents would view them with a high degree of skepticism. It is not Captain Wooldridge's fault really. Trying to win in one's adoptive state is hard enough; trying to win in an adoptive home state that has historically elected a Democrat governor is far worse. Many hopefuls prior to the three-time Boss have found that to be true, and now so has he.

Now that the ORTL gubernatorial hopeful is out of the running; and the current GOP candidate is not pro-life; it seems natural that the PAC would reallocate funds to support the only other pro-life candidate on the ballot. However, this is not the case. Seemingly it has never been the case, and if the ORTL PAC's Political Director David Kilada is to be believed, it never will be.

Why?

Because in Kilada's own words: "Minor parties haven't demonstrated that they are capable of fielding winning candidates." This is taken from an email sent to a loyal reader of this blog, who passed it along in the hopes that we might be able to shed some light on what seems to be (pardon the expression) an abortion of justice and common sense. Elsewhere in the email, asserts that "The amount of resources we would need to carry a minor party candidate through statewide is astronomical.  We don't believe in throwing away endorsements." Later on, the Political Director rather curtly adds "Policies have implications.  That's why we are careful to follow them.  Our policies such as these are how pro-life voters know they can trust our process."

It may be asserted by the PAC that this article is taking statements out of context. Sadly this is not the case. At the end of this article, dear reader, you will find the full text of each email sent to this member of the Renegade family. Read and judge for yourself.

In any case, the stated purpose for the PAC's existence reads in part "[o]ur focus is on electing champions for protecting life from conception to natural death." This Mission Statement comes into question when there does exist a gubernatorial candidate that would champion this cause wholeheartedly: Oregon native and Constitution Party nominee Aaron Auer. It especially comes into question when the idea of them "work[ing] to identify and support pro-life candidates for office..." doesn't seem to line up with their actions.

The logic expressed by the PAC regarding third-party candidates seems to fall to pieces when

considering any number of relevant facts: The fact that Mr. Auer has done all his own campaigning and funding; the fact that on a far smaller and tighter budget than his competitors, he repeatedly brought in at least one percent of the vote, and all in general  election.

Aaron Auer is a circuit-riding preacher; he founded the ROAR (Restoring Oregon's Amazing Roots) organization, and regularly participates in events aimed at reminding people of the state's awe-inspiring history. He keeps the account of the Nez Perce tribe and their quest for the Book Of Heaven alive. He fights tirelessly to prevent the Circuit Rider monument from being removed from the State House grounds. He is galvanized, courageous and emboldened to champion righteous causes- And the Sanctity of Life issue is certainly a righteous cause.

In spite of all of this, an examination of the PAC's recommended candidates revealed no mention of the Constitution Party hopeful whatsoever. Why? He did the work to get himself on the ballot. He's putting in the effort to travel and meet people. He's drumming up support for himself by pounding pavement. Yet his name does not appear in the PAC's list of supportable candidates. (See image left)


Kilada maintains that "...endorsing minor party candidates would ...throw away elections by endorsing multiple candidates in races with pro-choice candidates." Yet in an earlier email he notes that "[w]e are focused on the dozens of legislative and local elections that are critical to the pro-life movement." Now wait just a moment, Mr. Kilada - Didn't you say that endorsing multiple candidates throws away elections?

The Political Director of the ORTL PAC also asserted that they "do not have favoritism in terms of parties." Yet a quick search of the names above show something interesting: Vineeta Lower - Republican. David Molina - Republican. Alexander Flores - Republican. Dorothy Merritt - Republican. Jack Zika - Republican. Brian Stout - Republican. Christine Drazan - Republican.

While it could be chalked up to the Democrat Party's inability to put forward a pro-life candidate, it certainly seems strange that there is no "favoritism in terms of parties," and yet the only candidates listed are GOP hopefuls. Additionally, about half of them are running against incumbent Democrats in districts that routinely elect Democrats. What was that about "throw[ing] away elections" and "throwing away endorsements?"

It is a wonder to me that, after seeing all of this malarkey and self-destructive adherence to a faulty policy, the ORTL PAC would invite people interested in running for office to contact them. What would they be told? That they must seek election as a Republican or a Democrat to be supported?

Suppose someone has the good will, support and backing of more voters than the GOP or DNC pro-life front-runner. This would virtually assure that well-liked candidate the electoral win. Would they be denied even an honorary mention simply because they were running under a third party?


As a pro-life family man considering a move to Oregon in the near future, I have been watching the electoral process fairly closely. I've paid attention to who has said what. I've researched the voting records, pet projects and desired goals of incumbents and hopefuls alike.

Nothing- And I repeat, nothing- Prepared me for seeing the sort of shocking lack of vision and foresight displayed by the Oregon Right To Life Political Action Committee. When someone with the title of Political Director can state over and over again that "our PAC policy has been and remains that we do not endorse minor party candidates" and "endorsing minor party candidates would ...throw away elections," there is something wrong.

These are not policy fueled processes that I, as a voter, could trust. To blatantly state that "[w]e are the only pro-life organization that works to support these candidates and it's critical that we get the word our[sic] to pro-life voters about these candidates" and then leave off any pro-life candidate is, in my view, a betrayal of trust. Regardless of policy. Regardless of donation. Regardless of party. A statement that "This is not our official candidate, but he is pro-life also" would be far better than an egregious display of willful ignorance.

Worse than a betrayal of trust, however, is the betrayal of that which the ORTL PAC adamantly claims to stand for:

Now, as promised, I will provide the emails I received. Read them, weigh them, and decide whether this PAC deserves support - Or if the candidate they have so casually thrown away as inconsequential might just be the message that they, and the state of Oregon, need to get loud and clear.

Incidentally, there has been no word if the reader has received anything back from Kilada. I will update this article if there are any new developments.

Email #1

Email #2

Email #3

Email #4

Email #5