Envy The Dead

There are some things in this world that are more terrifying than others. For instance, a firecracker exploding at one's feet pales in comparison to an atom bomb doing the same. A windstorm with fifty mile an hour winds is troubling, but a hurricane is far worse. One tornado is bad, but being surrounded by multiple tornadoes is panic inducing to the extreme.

The point is, there are often more important things to concern ourselves with than whatever has got our ire up. This is certainly not always reality, but it is quite often the case. I remember hearing a story about a man who chose to weather a hurricane at home rather than evacuate. At one point in the midst of the storm, there was a break in the clouds and the sun shone through. He was on the phone with his son at the time, and complained that the bright sunlight off of the floodwaters was hurting his eyes. He complained about the sun's light, but was surrounded by devastation. As unbelievable as this story sounds, there have been a lot of accounts where people were more concerned with petty inconvenience than with potential destruction.

I was thinking about this because of late, it seems as though we're seeing a storm of "worse." Yet for some reason, everyone is apparently ignoring it to focus on the "bad." What's even more strange is that the "bad" is often a side-effect of the "worse," yet one is still focused on to the exclusion of the other. Tears For Fears had it right: It is a mad world.

The Plight of the Living

Take for example the illegal immigration issue. It's certainly a hot topic these days, and for good reason. No reasonable and rational citizen will argue that the United States was not founded and created by immigrants. Most will also agree that the conditions from which many of these immigrants are fleeing are deplorable. I think one might also be hard pressed to find a reasonable and rational person disagreeing with the sad state of these people when they arrive at the border. However, focusing solely on the people, the conditions they fled and their state upon arrival ignores a fundamental fact: The United States has a process by which all of these people can enter into the country without fear of Immigration Enforcement.

AOC and other deluded members of Congress seem to believe that the definition of the phrase "fundamental fact" is "kook thought." In reality; something which they seem to be wholly out of touch with; it is a foundational truth. Immigration has been provided for by law in this nation since 1791. While opinion on immigration has fluctuated significantly between 1800 and today, there has always been a path to citizenship for any who wish it. To react to news of immigrant caravans as though there is no structure in place is to live in a world of fantasy. Moreover, it does seem as though many legislators have some form of dementia when they begin speaking about this subject.

The Plight of the Unborn

Another example of ignoring the greater threat for the sake of the minor annoyance is the subject of abortion. Since Roe v Wade, there have been over sixty-one million abortions in the United States. There have been over one and a half billion world wide since 1980, and over eight million performed by Planned Parenthood since 1970. At the time of this writing, there have been over one hundred and seventy-seven thousand abortions this year. A little over seventeen hundred were stated to be due to rape or incest. There are no solid figures for how many abortions are done for the sake of the mother's life, but most hover around the one percent mark since 1973.

In the United States, it was initially taught to society that a fetus was nothing more than a blob of tissue. The rhetoric was changed over time to suggest that a fetus was then a parasitic organism, and now they teach that a fetus is... Well, a fetus. An undeveloped baby. Yet in New York, legislators passed a bill later signed into law by Governor Cuomo that allows abortions to be performed by anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Many states are now trying to do the same. The inconvenience is that actions (namely sex) have consequences. The greater threat is that the United States, first by ruling of the Supreme Court and now by legislation, has made murder legal.

"Murder" is defined as the termination of life, and "life" is loosely defined as the ability to function independent of aid. A baby is considered to be a live person in the United States when they can live apart from their mother. Over ninety percent can do this at twenty-six weeks, and seventy percent can do this at twenty-four weeks. Thirty-five percent of babies born at twenty-three weeks can now survive, and this percentage is growing every day with the advancement of medical science. Thus, the termination of a viable fetus is by definition murder. It is not considered to be such by law though, because inconvenience triumphs over reality.

The Plight of Society

We live in a mad world. We decry the genocide of third-world dictators, yet approve of the deaths of sixty-one million innocents, even though both are carried out in the name of convenience. We shed tears over the plight of people wanting to move freely into our nation without being inconvenienced by background checks and other safeguards, but we grow angry when acts of terrorism by foreign nationals inflict death and destruction upon us. We want to prevent our feelings from getting hurt, but have no problem in oppressing entire people groups to accomplish this task.

In short, our society in general wants to have life both ways. We want to have our cake and eat it as well. We want to live life free from consequence; we want to be free from the laws of nature by enacting laws of men. There is only one group of the world's population that has found the way to be free of consequence, and that group is growing by the minute. They are the dead, and no more apt a phrase can be applied to the world today than the words penned by the author of Ecclesiastes:

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

Constitutionalist Commentary part 2

This is part two of a series I will be doing on why I identify myself as a Constitutionalist. I have been receiving questions lately on why I chose the Constitution Party over the Republicans, and I cannot explain the answer in any more brief a way than this: The Constitution Party represents my views more closely than any other party.

However, for those who are looking for more information, read on. This second part will cover the section titled “Sanctity of Life.” You can find it HERE. I recommend reading it, because I will refer to it regularly throughout this post.

The first part of this section quotes the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The phrasing from the Constitution quote is most important. It states, very specifically, that it secures liberty for both the current generation, and the generation to come. In other words, those which have been born, and those yet to be. If any wonder why most pro-life groups are referred to as “right to life,” this statement is why. Any termination of human life, at any stage, is a gross violation and transgression against the Constitution.

I agree fully with the statement that a pregnancy should not be terminated for the crimes of the father. Rape and incest are crimes in themselves, and ones which wreak havoc on all involved parties. However, to end the life of an innocent only furthers this damage, and furthers the crime. One innocent has already suffered in this situation- Two innocents suffering is unthinkable. A recent study showed 73% of rape victims give birth to their children; a prior study showed 75% to 85% chose the same way. Obviously, the majority of the victims in this study did not think along the lines of most pro-abortion mouthpieces. Furthermore, data shows termination of such pregnancies to be detrimental to the victim. It does not solve a single problem, and it leaves the victim feeling like a criminal.

Abortion is also not an acceptable birth control method. If one wishes to spin that roulette wheel, they can take their chances with prophylactics of varying forms. Methods such as the morning after pill do not work in practice within other areas of life- One cannot rob a bank and decide to give the money back the next morning; one cannot kill then decide to give the victim’s life back the next morning; nor can one become pregnant, then decide to give the child back the next morning. Such is life, and life has consequences which must be faced.

The only method of birth control which is one hundred percent effective is abstinence. If that seems unbearable, then spin the wheel and take what comes.

The statement that court decisions are binding only to the parties involved is true. Roe vs Wade was binding only to the parties involved, and further reference to it as binding national law is lunacy. The courts do not create federal law- They enforce them. The Supreme Court is granted the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, but it is a power not granted them to create law by ruling. Such statements are not in keeping with the express powers granted within the Constitution.

Moreover, every state is a separate government ruled by law itself. Each of these states is sovereign, independent of Federal rulings. Each state has the right to govern itself, to the extent the Constitution allows. As pertains to abortion, every state can, and must, deny and renounce the rulings of the Supreme Court as binding law.

I continue to stand behind anyone willing to stand up and be counted as pro-life. Thus, I am in full agreement with the nomination and campaign of anyone with a pro-life agenda. This includes legislation, judicial enforcement, law enforcement and executive order. No innocent life should be ended at the whim of another.

The section continues by declaring that the advancement of federal power through legislation such as the FACE Act to be in violation of the Constitution. I firmly agree, and affirm that the government must immediately withdraw the law. Such legal action is specifically and completely within the State Government’s power, and to be enacted or repealed by the State alone. The federal government has no Constitutional authority in this matter whatsoever.

Continuing, I stand with the party stance on stem cell research. Such cells are unnecessary for this form of research, and can be harvested from a number of other resources. These resources include the placenta and the umbilical cord. A human life need not be ended to research the potential extension of another.

I also stand with the party regarding euthanasia, infanticide and suicide. These are all right to life issues, all covered by this section, and all preventable with proper care and knowledge. The end of any life need not be so cheapened. Indeed, all life is far too valuable to waste in any of the afore mentioned manners.

I personally do diverge slightly from this section. While I believe that human life begins at conception, I acknowledge that there are life-threatening pregnancies which occur. By this, I mean that so-called “tubal pregnancies” threaten the life of the mother. These pregnancies are rarely carried to term, and it is even rarer for the child to be found alive in the event of a full term pregnancy.

As such, I believe that in cases such as these, such pregnancies should be monitored closely. If there is any problem inconsistent with normal pregnancy; any problem where the medical community would be unable to intervene on behalf of the mother and child; the pregnancy must necessarily be terminated. This is a last resort, and most serious in nature. Every such termination would need to be reviewed, with every bit of documentation of the pregnancy, to ensure that nothing further could be done.

This method would also be immediately halted should technology progress to the point of transplanting tubal pregnancies to the uterus. At this point, no abortion will be permissible. All emergency funding for such procedures would immediately be transferred to tubal/uterus transplants, and all further abortive procedures would be prosecuted as murder.

This is the only area in which I diverge on this issue, and one that is reconcilable with the stance as a whole. I will explain.

In war of any kind, there will be casualties. These casualties can be minimized, but sometimes this minimization comes at great sacrifice. During Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers often had to make a snap decision regarding the right to life. When a child or a woman came walking forward with a bomb strapped to them, the choice was clear: kill the carrier, or allow many more to die.

Likewise, in an emergency situation, triage is often followed. In this instance, once more, decisions must be made regarding the right to life. For some individuals, no amount of medical knowledge will save their lives. Then, there are others who can be saved, but only at the cost of the first group. Finally, there are those who need medical attention, but can wait for only one other group before time runs out. In this situation, the first group is nearly always sacrificed to save the other two.

Finally, our law enforcement officers are placed in situations where they too must make decisions regarding the right to life. In these situations, they are often faced with a perpetrator intent on harming himself or others, and often with far more lethal intentions. The decision they face is such: Shoot and possibly kill the suspect, or allow them to harm and possibly kill others? Though it is a hard choice to make, often the only decision to be made is the shooting of the suspect to save the lives of others.

In these three examples, we see that the right to life is sometimes necessarily voided for the wellbeing of others. Likewise, my position does not contradict the overall position of the party. Rather, it acknowledges the tough reality of life itself: That sometimes, choices such as these must be made.

However, these choices are not open to those who would use them at whim. Those who do we call murderers, terrorists, Nazis and other such titles. No, these choices are made only by those facing the decision from a third person perspective. They are not the potential victim, nor are they the potential villain; they are the deciding factor in a tragic twist of life. Only in the case of a truly life threatening situation do these choices arise, and only the deciding factor can make that unbiased call.

To summarize, abortion is a violation of the Constitution in that it ends an innocent life. No court can create binding law contrary to this, as it violates the Constitution. No federal agency can force state government to allow abortion, as that violates the Constitution. Abortion is not a form of birth control, and often creates more problems. Abortion does not solve problems; it only makes the problems worse. There are rare cases in which abortion may be justified, but only until this archaic and horrific practice can be replaced with a more humane method of saving the life of the mother.

This is my commentary on the Sanctity of Life section of the Constitution Party. Next I will review the section: Bring Government Back Home.