What Is The United States Declaration Of Independence?

The United States Declaration of Independence is a document written in 1776. The writer of the document was Thomas Jefferson. It was written to King George of England. It gave the reasons for why the people in the thirteen colonies wanted independence.

The United States Declaration of Independence was signed by fifty-six people. The oldest person signing it was Benjamin Franklin. The youngest to sign was Edward Rutledge. The largest signature on the document belongs to John Hancock who was acting as president of Congress. It is said that he wanted to make sure that King George could read it without his glasses.

The Five Parts of the Document

The United States Declaration of Independence is taught in five parts.

The first part is called the Introduction. In this part, the full date is given, which was July 4, 1776. It states that all thirteen colonies stood together in the writing and sending of it. It also says that it is their belief that history calls for events like the one they were about to do. They were going to declare freedom. They knew King George would not give them freedom. So they were declaring their own freedom and expecting war as a result.

The second part is called the Preamble. This word simply means introduction. Here it is used as a place to give an outline. The writer outlines what the colonies believed was proper government. They wanted a government that allowed for people to have a say in laws. They wanted people to have a say in taxes. when people don't have the chance to take part in government the colonies believed they had a right to declare war on the government. This is called revolution.

The third part is called the Indictment. This is where the writer and colonies with him listed all of the things that King George did wrong. It was a list of bad things King George had demanded. It also tells King George that the colonies tried to talk to him about these bad things. It says that the king didn't listen.

The fourth part is called the Denunciation. This word means that the colonies were accusing people. They accused King George. They also accused the people in England for not helping them. They say in this section that because of these problems they had to go to war.

The fifth part is called the Conclusion. Here the colonies finished their document. They said that because of all the things that England had done, they were choosing to be free of England's government. They said that they no longer saw King George as their ruler. They would rule themselves.

After these parts, the people that the colonies had sent to represent them in Congress signed their names. They wanted King George to see that everyone agreed.

What the Declaration of Independence Means 

What the Declaration of Independence means to the United States today is debated. Some say that it is just an old document. They think that the document has no value except as a piece of history. Other people think that it is important to teach. But they don't think that it is important enough to talk about. There are still a lot of people who think that it is important to talk about. They believe that forgetting the document and what it says could lead to people forgetting about what freedom really is. They think that if people forget about what King George did in the past they might allow our government now to get just as bad.

What do you think? Is the Declaration of Independence important today? Why is it important? Why isn't it important?

What Happened 

Because of this document the colonies went to war with England. King George sent many soldiers to force the colonies to obey. But the colonies didn't want to obey King George anymore. So they fought against the soldiers that King George sent. This war is called the American Revolutionary War. Many things happened in the war. Bad things were done. Good things were done. Many people died. Many more lived. In the end, the colonies became the United States of America.

But that is another story for a different time.

Assassination Justification

or, Now We Know How To Get Around Executive Order 12333

Photo by Ashwini Chaudhary on Unsplash

This past Wednesday, I had a revealing debate in a popular restaurant of all places. Two nights before, all but three Democrats in Senate voted to keep debating whether a child born alive after an abortion attempt was worth the same protection that any other child is granted. Because this vote was not necessarily in the news heavily, but being discussed by many anyway, I was naturally asked for my opinion. I say naturally, because this is a place I go to regularly, and many of the staff and frequent patrons know me. 

When I was asked my opinion, I simply stated that it was a damn shame that some children are considered to be worth less than others; at least, in the minds of forty-three Democrats and one so-called Independent. I stated that Senators Casey, Jones and Manchin deserved a standing ovation for separating from their party (Democrat) and agreeing that all children should be protected. I also said that I believed that day was perhaps the darkest day this nation has seen since the state of New York passed the "Reproductive Health Care Act" (RHA). That law, contrary to statements by supporters, uses such broad language that a child could potentially be killed without consequence even at the point of birth. Lastly, I added that this seemed like the first step in a larger attempt to decriminalize murder, possibly leading to mandated euthanasia or worse.

The woman I was talking to; and who had asked my opinion on the matter; agreed with me. She said that when New York passed the RHA, she read an article that had a statement she couldn't believe. The writer of that article had said that we could only believe that medical professionals would risk their licensing and careers to perform frivolous abortions if we showed similar distrust of doctors performing other procedures. The conclusion was that anyone who didn't trust a medical professional to do an abortion was simply unreasonable and out of their minds. The woman I was talking to then said that as recently a week before, she had seen another news report of a misbehaving doctor. 

As I agreed, a gentleman who is there on occasion decided to interject. This is an account of that discussion.

+++

"The danger of that particular bill was that it could have been used to impede a woman's right to choose," he began. "You, as a man, do not have the right to impose your will upon a woman or her body."

"I'm standing next to a woman who agrees with me," I observed dryly. 

"That's beside the point," he responded. "You do not have a voice in this matter, so your opinion is not only unwanted, it is also worthless since it relies heavily on the slippery slope fallacy."

"That's interesting," I said, feeling myself getting a little heated, "Considering that you're also a man, yet your opinion is apparently gold."

"I'm just speaking the truth," he said with a shrug. "You're the one with such a high and lofty opinion of yourself." He glanced at his phone briefly and added, "Which, I suppose, is typical for someone supporting President Frump."

Something in my mind snapped at this point. "Okay, so let's go ahead and go on record here. The lady here wanted my opinion, and quite frankly, you've made it very clear that yours is more valuable than mine. You say that the bill could be used to impede a woman's right to choose, right? Do you realize that the language of the bill explicitly sheltered any woman who gave birth after an abortion attempt? Under that law, she could not be charged with anything? How does that impede her right to choice?"

"Oh, it wasn't the law itself," he said with a chuckle. "It was the fact that it penalized doctors and medical personnel who failed to take measures to save any infant that was born alive. Doctors would stop offering abortions and women would once more begin dying from back alley procedures."

"Really? Who's making the slippery slope arguments now? From 1972 to 1979, twenty-four women died from post-abortive hemorrhaging, which is still recognized to this day by the CDC as only the third most frequent cause of death associated with abortion. They rarely talk about the first and second causes, infection and embolism. What they don't mention is that while the overall mortality rate has gone down for women who get abortions since that time, the rates of hemorrhaging and infection have risen." I raised an eyebrow. "Worse still, prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion related deaths were being reported because it was illegal to perform abortions. Now, fewer deaths are being reported, yet it is pretty clear that doesn't mean there are fewer fatalities. In fact, approximately three out of four maternal deaths related to legal abortion aren't even identified. The idea that more women are going to die if abortion is made illegal doesn't stand under the weight of the statistics. Not to mention that we're not even discussing abortion as a whole. We're talking about partial birth and after birth abortion. Murder, in my eyes." 

His posture straightened and he seemed more resolute now. "Abortion, whether it is at one day or nine months, is still the prerogative of the woman. It is not your place to say what is and is not allowed, and neither can the damn Republicans."

I leveled my eyes on him, looking for any sign of flinching as I asked, "So you're saying that a woman should be able, even at the point of birth, to decide she does not want a child?"

He didn't pause for a second. "Absolutely."

I wasn't so surprised by his response at this point, but I could tell the lady was. Her eyes widened and her mouth opened just a little. When she didn't say anything, I took the opportunity to challenge his way of thinking.

"Should a man who assaults a pregnant woman be charged with assault and murder if the child dies?"

He didn't bat an eye. "Certainly, if the state law allows for it. That's a different matter entirely."

"Fair enough," I said, appreciating his viewpoint. "But you're saying that if that same woman decides she doesn't want a child after all, even as she's giving birth, the child should die? And, of course, because it's a completely different circumstance, it is not murder. Am I understanding you correctly?"

He nodded. "Yes, and yes."

"Huh." I thought for a moment, then asked, "So by that logic, your mother could choose to terminate your life, and because it's a different circumstance, it's not murder." 

He laughed. "Of course that would be murder. Although my mother is saint, and very religious, so she wouldn't even consider it."

The woman I had initially been talking to interjected, "How fortunate for you."

If he picked up on her sarcasm, he gave no sign that he had. "I think so. I rather enjoy my life."

I held up my hand. "I just want to make certain that I have a clear picture of your stance, if I may."

He nodded again. "Certainly."

"Okay," I began, "Let us assume that the woman in this situation is in no danger of losing her life by giving birth, or by carrying a child to term."

"So assumed," he confirmed. 

"So this woman gets to her due date, and maybe a few days past it, and goes in to the hospital to have her child. somewhere along the line she panics and decides she can't raise a child. She should be allowed to kill the child without it being defined as murder?"

"Correct."

"If that woman had initially decided to have a third trimester abortion, but it didn't work, and she delivers early as a result, she should still be allowed to authorize the death of that child, without anyone being guilty of murder?"

"Absolutely. It's her right to choose."

"And if the same woman actually gives birth to the child, but has a change of heart before they cut the cord, that child can be killed, and it is not murder?"

"I would use the term 'terminated' in all cases," he corrected me smoothly, "but essentially yes."

"And just so I don't get caught up on any other minor details," I said by way of preface, "You are aware that in the last two cases, the child is now breathing air on his or her own?"

"On it's own, but yes."

"It's own. Terminated. Got it," I said, repeating the terminology for his benefit. "Okay. So basically according to your view, personhood is defined by an individual's choice. Regardless of when that choice takes place. It could be at eighteen days, or it could be eighteen minutes after birth."

He paused for a moment, looked at the ceiling, and then looked back at me. "You could say that, yes."

"So by your logic, the determining factor between undesirable and desirable," I stopped and rephrased, "Rather, the determining factor between priceless and worthless is the choice of a single individual?"

"Correct."

"Wow." I said. "I can see it all so clearly now. That means, that I could decide you are worthless, kill you, and not be charged with murder. I was only making an arbitrary choice, and preventing something worthless from taking away from our planet's valuable resources by termination. Not murder."

He smirked at me. "That's not how it works."

"Right, because I'm not a woman."

He nodded, the smirk still there. "Because you're not my mother."

"Ah, I see." I said. "So if your mother, then, tired of your viewpoint on this issue, she could choose to deem you worthless and terminate your life without being charged with murder."

"No," he said, now finally appearing flustered. "Again, that's not how this works."

"But that's what you said. A woman, even after the point of birth, can choose to terminate her child. I mean, it's either murder, or it isn't. If innocence is the deciding factor between whether the ending of a life is acceptable or not, then the difference between the death penalty and murder is understandable. But if a mother's choice is the deciding factor between whether the ending of a life is acceptable or not, then the difference between post-birth or partial-birth abortion and drowning her child doesn't make sense. It must be murder, or it must not be. There is no room for it to go both ways."

The smirk was gone. There was a vein visible in his forehead that I had not noticed before. As he walked away, he said, "You're a closed-minded bigot."

+++

As the woman I had begun the conversation with walked to the register to settle the man's tab, she suggested to me that perhaps if I had gender reassignment my opinion would be valid. I laughed at that, because the thought had not occurred to me. When she returned, she informed me that the man had overheard her comment, and stated that it still wouldn't make a difference, because I would still be biologically a man.

+++

So there you have it. This account is as accurate as I can recall. There may have been some things left out, but I have added nothing. 

Killing Children

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." The bill, sponsored by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, is intended to provide protection for those infants who, in spite of abortive measures, are born alive. It protects the now born alive infant from further action to terminate its life.

This, the protection of human life, should be without question something which our lawmakers agree on. Regardless of political affiliation. Regardless of what they think of our current President. Regardless of all other views held on foreign policy, immigration, the United States Constitution, traffic laws or whether the sky is pink - Our lawmakers should desire above all else to protect human life. They all say that they do on the campaign trail. They choose to demonstrate that they do in various ways, at least during election cycles.

So with all of this said, I am naturally here to give you the rare "good news" story. The story that happens once or twice a year where politicians put aside their partisan differences for the sake of something that truly matters on a grand scale. I am here to tell you that achieved cloture on the bill, which is a fancy way of saying that they agreed there was nothing to debate and the bill must be voted on.

Ah, as the fictional narrator of a popular children's series might say, how I wish I could tell you that this is exactly what happened. How I wish I could write that the sun shone bright on the United States Senate, as it were, and that the Senators joined hands across the aisles to stand as one. I would like nothing more, in fact, to pen a sonnet about the day when a human being's right to live after drawing air for the first time was codified and made law. Perhaps one day I will do just that, but alas, today is not that day.

I cannot write these things, for at 5:42 yesterday evening, as the sun set on the Eastern seaboard of the United States of America, it set also on the hopes and dreams and battles of any newborn survivors of abortion attempts. And as the sun set on these things, so too did it set on these very lives; lives of infants who, against all odds and circumstance and technology and oppression, had fought hard enough to take that first breath... Only to have it stolen. The ember of their lives quenched without mercy or care or concern or goodness or any other human decency.

The human race, at least that which calls the United States home, denied the very promise of the nation that it so hypocritically fights for on the part of any other human. If the human is a rapist, they deserve mercy. If the human is a trafficker, they deserve leniency. If the human is a murderer, they still deserve their life.

But if the human is mere seconds old; if the human has drawn its first or perhaps its second breath; if that human has survived a saline wash, or an acid bath, or a toxic shock, or a drug overdose, or repeated stabbings, or anything else of that sort; survived these things and fought through to come into the land of the living? Well, that human is not worthy of being called a human. Apparently. Born innocent, that human is still guilty of the most heinous of crimes: Inconveniencing a society set on that humans death.

I am not being alarmist. I am not exaggerating facts, nor am I conflating any issues. I fully understand that there are women out there who are faced with horrors that should never be wished upon a human being. I realize that there are consequences for these horrors, and that one of those is pregnancy. I do not suggest that a woman in such a position be not only forced to carry such a pregnancy to term but also care for that child as well. My personal beliefs are not a part of this article, and to the best of my abilities I am trying to remain as civil as possible. I am also attempting to remain as non-judgmental as possible. If it strikes you differently, dear reader, I beg your forgiveness.

To that end, I have called several hospitals around the nation. Seventy-eight, to be exact. I have called them to inquire about specific policy completely unrelated to the abortion issue. Only six returned my calls or deigned to speak to me, and all requested anonymity. From this small sampling, I can say that at least with these hospitals, the policy for an unwanted live birth is to turn that child over for care by the state or by private organizations. In all cases, the mother's name is left off of the public record, and in many cases she is given a pseudonym. The mother need not be concerned with being tracked down in later years to be asked uncomfortable questions.

Yet it seems that many people are under the impression that a woman who chooses not to have an abortion; or a woman who has had a failed abortion; will be forced to care for the child. It seems that the going understanding is that she will be made, whether by coercion or some other means, to raise it and be reminded every hour of every day of a failing or of a horror.

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." One Senator who voted against this bill decried its language as impeding a woman's right to choose. Please read the text. There is no such language.

Another Senator who voted against human life stated that it would send women to prison for exercising their rights to choose. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." There is no such language; in fact, steps were taken within it to assure the exact opposite.

Still another Senator suggested that it would completely reverse the right for women to obtain an abortion. There is no such language. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." Read it for yourself, and tell me if I am wrong.

I have said before that I don't care for the way in which our current President speaks. He is brash. He is rash. He is impulsive and contrary and seemingly set on making enemies wherever he goes. He was also one hundred percent right on this observation, and I leave it with you as an apt summary of my feelings on the injustice which every Democrat hoping for the presidency embarked upon last night.

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