Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, June 12, 2019 by devadmin

The National Popular Vote (NPV) is another leg of the progressive movement that is rolling across the US. Simply put, it is part of the scheme to undermine our fair and balanced election process. Although the popular vote initiative sounds reasonable on its surface, the devil is in the details. The NCSL (National Conference of State Legislators) website states:

“The National Popular Vote (NPV) movement emerged in late 2006 and has slowly gain some steam since then.

“NPV seeks to ensure that the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide is elected president. When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state.”

In a perfectly wild example, imagine if every single voter in Oregon cast a Republican vote for the President. Under NPV, after the polls close and the chads are counted and recounted, if a democrat candidate had a slim majority of votes nationwide, the state’s electors would be required to cast their vote for the democrat, even though not a single soul within the state affirmed that choice.

This is a clear violation of the principle of local control and the consent of the governed. Unfortunately, this twisted logic has Oregon’s democrats feverishly working to be the 16^th “blue” state to pass an NPV bill (SB 870). It has already passed through the Senate and House, largely along party-lines and is now on its way to the Governor’s office.

The founders created a uniquely American scheme for electing office-holders at the national level. It was designed to disrupt the natural tendencies of mankind which have been witnessed in every age. To wit, regardless of national origin, religion, creed, sex or gender people exposed to power will be tempted by lust and selfish greed to amass more power.

Our nation’s founders wanted to preserve the principles of representation while building in constitutional safeguards for diluting unnecessary concentrations of power.  For example, they split the legislative body into two chambers, the House and Senate. Senators, representing the States, were elected to office by their respective State Legislatures. Unfortunately, this protection was undone in 1913 with the passage of the 17^th Amendment.

Prior to the 17^th Amendment, the Constitution specified that senators were elected by state legislatures. This construction gave state governments an equal say in the national body with regard to legislation, rules and regulations that would affect all states. Each state would have equal representation in the Senate with two Senators from each state.

The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their ties with the national government. The 17^th Amendment changed this process to a direct election by the people of their state, essentially making it identical to the process for the U.S. House of Representatives. The fervor for NPV at the presidential level is an exact replica of the turmoil that hammered the nation during the debates around the 17^th Amendment.

The House of Representatives was designed as the only chamber which had members directly elected by a vote of the people. Like our state’s House, this body was responsible for protecting the interests of the people and was the body that had budgetary power, being responsible for taxes and revenue.

The constitutional design had the president, or chief executive, elected by both houses of the legislature via their specific electors – the Electoral College. This arrangement created yet another filter on the proxies coming from the House and Senate and created a formidable obstacle to slow the quickened motives of ingenious men.

Additionally, the terms of office for these elected positions was purposely staggered across two-, four- and six-year spans with one-third of the Senate being elected every two years. In turn, the states generally dispersed their powers by having them exercised by municipalities, counties, and other local governments – local governance being the preferred choice.

The current NPV tomfoolery would ordain what the progressives falsely call “popular” rule but it is more akin to mob rule where everything is centrally orchestrated.

In the most recent 2016 election, the Electoral College proved to be a legitimate safety net for preserving the will of the people:

1. There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.
2. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
3. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
4. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
5. These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
6. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely-populated, group-think cities (NYC, Chicago, Seattle, LA, etc.) shouldn’t be allowed to usurp the opinions of the rest of the country. The progressive movement toward NPV is a dangerous idea and runs contrary to our founders’ remarkable blueprint for preserving the Liberty for the people while tempering the ever-present lust for capricious power.

Thos. Jefferson spoke directly to this in 1798, writing, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Finding freedom in the chains of our Constitution is what made America great in the first place … and …  it will Make America Great Again.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common-sense, No one will.

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Friday, June 9, 2017 by devadmin

Oregon’s Secretary of State, Dennis Richardson, reported last week that Oregon Health Authority may have failed to validate as many as 115,000 Medicaid recipient

Richardson estimated that potentially 86,000 of these individuals are ineligible for Medicaid coverage. On average, if every individual on Medicaid costs the state and federal government $430 a month, then the total fraud and waste is a whopping $37 million a month.

These are staggering numbers. You might wonder how Oregon gets away with such waste, and the sad answer is that we’ve come to believe an economic fallacy.

This fallacy, or false belief, is the idea of free money. Free money is the sought-after prize in politics, allowing the entrenched powers to create and continue state programs with little or no critical oversight.

Oregon’s legislature will often present the public with a grand solution for problems like the cost of college or healthcare. Unfortunately, their engineered solution always entails free money, which means that someone else will pay the bill.

Free money comes with strings attached. Salesmen offer these gimmicks all the time. It is an effective sales tool because of the personal discipline and hard work required to save, budget and plan. We should all know this instinctively, but the quick gratification that comes from signing onto that “no money down” new car can’t be beat. We can each imagine cruising down the Oregon coast in our shiny new SUV. Many lawmakers use this same technique to hide the real cost from the taxpayer while pitching a story that sounds too good to be true.

In Oregon’s case, along with free money comes bundles of regulations, mandates, taxes and penalties on Oregonians, all because lawmakers couldn’t be bothered to work for sustainable solutions.

Think about this concept with affordable or free health care.

When we need health advice, care or a prescription, we visit a healthcare provider. That becomes an external cost because we are buying a product or service, just as if we were paying for an oil change for our car or a cup of coffee from a barista.

We all realize that skilled people designed, engineered, tested, manufactured and distributed the thousands of medical machines we take for granted in our hospitals and doctors’ offices. We agree that it’s unfair to ask a doctor to go to school for years and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on education and then be expected to work for free. We certainly would not expect a scientist in a lab, designing new medical devices, the pharmacist at your local drugstore, or the receptionist at your doctor’s front desk to work for free either. These are skilled Americans doing needed jobs.

So, it appears that despite rhetoric about “free health care” as a right, it is the same as our no-money-down car analogy – it’ll definitely cost us, just maybe not today.

In fact, our health care system is the most fiscally explosive entitlement ever conceived.

Its growth is a ticking time-bomb for two reasons. First, the person receiving the health care benefit is completely disconnected from the cost. You and I have no idea what our doctor’s visit costs. We don’t know what our pharmaceuticals cost or should cost because we either get them for free or make a small co-pay contribution.

Second, healthcare costs are hidden and shifted across the population. For example, all US men carry coverage for maternity, prenatal and postnatal care. This is the ultimate “hidden fee” because it applies charges to people who will never use the services.

People can only make good decisions about healthcare with good information, including details about the costs involved. The current structure destroys the consumers’ ability to make wise choices about their own healthcare. People find themselves trapped in an environment where compliance with the rules, regulations and bureaucratic red-tape is a burden that becomes more difficult as they age.

Hidden costs also sabotage corrective pressure coming from consumers. Consumers are the best agents for communicating directly with their doctors and healthcare providers. However, without valid information the consumer becomes powerless.

As consumers look for help, government responds by sending in an army of bureaucrats armed with price-controls, regulations, and reporting requirements. Unfortunately, their intervention is after they created the problem in the first place.

Obamacare, like the 1965 enactment of Medicare, did not erupt spontaneously on the American political scene. In truth, this mess has been festering and growing, like malignant cancer, since the Progressive political movement sought power through government control during the early 1900’s. Socialized medicine and centralized control over healthcare is the Progressive’s dream.

There is no good reason for bureaucrats to substitute their opinions into the relationship between the patient and his, or her, doctor. Individuals deserve control over their own healthcare and putting patients back in control is our only answer.

In closing, we have our work cut out for us. It will take enormous amounts of energy, tenacity and courage to return to free choice in our healthcare markets.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will!

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, April 25, 2019 by devadmin

Super majorities and the poison fruit of statism can grow in orchards on both the left and right sides of the road. We know this because history informs us and dictates what we will see tomorrow. Patrick Henry told us, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past.”

In today’s newsletter, I am going to bypass several thousand bills that are in the Legislature. I’m going to skip-over the gross receipts sales tax, the carbon tax, the recent ban on plastic straws, as well as, the “mandatory requirement for vaccinations in exchange for education benefits” rigamarole.

Instead, I want to focus attention on the Oregon disarmament bill: SB 978. It is still alive and like a zombie is shuffling through the hallways of the marble palace. This bill continues to exist by the force of this administration’s empty rhetoric and faulty logic.

SB 978 represents a purposeful and energetic effort for disarming Oregonians and infringing on their liberties. The sheer animosity leveled against law abiding citizens is inscrutable and illustrates a complete disrespect for our 2nd Amendment rights. The magical facade of “needed reform” is all that is necessary to mask the demolition of our constitutional liberties. It appears that the real goal is total disarmament of law-abiding Oregonians.

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, April 4, 2018 by devadmin

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,              the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It has been well over a week since the “March for Our Lives” organizers staged an impressive protest back east. Social media antagonists and pundits are all quite impressed with what they pulled off because of the scale and the speed of its orchestration. The speakers, microphones, TV cameras, staging and bus transportation to and from the event make it obvious that this was more than a gathering pulled off by high-school students. This protest was clearly staged for the media and was not an organic grass-roots movement.

That Washington, D.C. rally was pulled off by progressive, well-heeled elites who have captured the minds of young people. In Saul Alinsky’s playbook, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky notes, “there are no rules for revolution,” meaning anything goes. However, at the heart of the agenda to capture idealistic and disenchanted young people, I see extremely corrosive tactics being used against individuals.

What we are witnessing is an ideological revolution. The main speakers continually called for the elimination of some of our nation’s constitutional guarantees. However, those guarantees, unbeknownst to the uninformed, are aimed at telling Congress what government can and can’t do. These are the rights that, “shall not be infringed.”

Throughout the Bill of Rights, certain congressional actions are prohibited while the rights and freedoms of the people are held whole and intact. We can see this in the language of several amendments where phrases, such as: “Congress shall make no law”, rights “shall not be infringed”, and certain rights are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” By implication, this means that the God-given rights of the people will always remain intact, while congressional power can be, and is, appropriately limited.

This constitutional methodology was designed to check, balance and limit government power while allowing ordered liberty to reign among the people. Interestingly, the Constitution was a compact among the states which was ratified by the individual states, themselves. It was not put into place by a massive election campaign across the original colonies. This means a popular vote across the nation can’t undo it, either.

As the Constitution was crafted by the Founders, it was not designed to sustain a strong national government, nor a heavily centralized power or national authority. Rather, these rules were written to guide future generations in their duty to “secure the blessings of Liberty,” ensuring that no one would be above the law and everyone is subject to all laws, equally.

To accomplish this, the central government was given a list of enumerated powers. In Federalist No. 45, Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, added more details:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

This last sentence is the one that most state gun-grabbers quote with glee. Some mistakenly believe that this means that their state governments can be manipulated to outlaw guns out of concern for the affairs and lives of their constituents.

This is not entirely true. Remember, God-given rights always remain in effect; they can’t be taken away by the majority, the legislature, the courts, or the mob. Restraints on government, both federal and state, must come from elsewhere.

It is essential to have an understanding of where our rights originate and where government authority, power and jurisdiction ends. We will never be able to defend our rights or labor for the return of lost rights if we do not know who granted those rights in the first place.

Our modern state is trying to assert ownership over all people, all concerns and all environments. Many Oregonian’s now realize that these formulations lack any reference to transcendent moral standards. It turns out that these new jurisdictional demands are simply the preferences made by those currently in power. If these laws are not grounded in eternal or transcendent moral value, then these laws will simply perpetuate injustice.

In fact, a transcendent moral understanding is what gives power to the only coherent argument against slavery.

Slavery is wrong, regardless of how many voters might vote in favor of slavery. If there were a national ballot measure seeking a pro-slavery initiative, it could never be right, or legal, regardless of the voting majority’s opinion. There would be no need to submit the measure to the Supreme Court attesting to the unconstitutional nature of the measure. It would be wrong because man has no authority over the laws of God which tells us that every human being carries infinite worth and value.

In closing, all of our God-given rights carry natural limitations. These limitations are not set by government power, authority, or by a vote of the people. These limitations are defined by the boundaries of natural law given to us outside of government power.

As Samuel West said in 1776, “The highest state of liberty subjects us to the law of nature and the government of God. The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason and submitting to natural law.”

Our right to keep and bear arms does not give any person the right to violate any other person’s God-given right to life or liberty. Nor does the right to keep and bear arms allow one person to violate the private property rights of another person. These checks, balances and limitations are built into the structure of every right by natural law. Individuals each carry these rights as inherent and absolute rights.

As Jefferson told us,

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense, No one will.

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Monday, April 1, 2019 by devadmin

Every perceived problem seems to get a new law drafted. The state tries to mandate solutions to even the smallest problems. Yet, their solutions rarely work as intended.

People aren’t allowed to solve their own problems they are forced to depend on the state’s bureaucratic experts. In turn, the individual is diminished, while the state is emboldened. Civic responsibility is weakened, and the quality of community and family-life is eroded.

C.S. Lewis noted in his preface to the Screwtape Letters, that we,

“live in the Managerial Age, in a world of ‘Admin.’ The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. …  it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.”

Lewis goes on to describe how his symbolism pictured, “an official society held together entirely by fear and greed.”  In essence, fear of the government’s regulations (and its regulators), with their ever-growing threats of fines and/or imprisonment causes people to be protective, suspicious and secretive. After all, who can know what traps have been set?

In the Senate Judiciary Committee, on April 2, a slew of anti-Second Amendment proposals is scheduled for public hearing.  These proposals are trumpeted as “necessary” for “safety”, but we all know that’s a ruse. In this case, the forty-four-page amendment to SB 978 is an full-scale barrage against the Second Amendment including a backdoor ban on concealed carry.

This law violates the inalienable right of all Oregonians to defend themselves and their families. Disarming law-abiding citizens is inviting violence into our communities and our homes. Gun-free zones are invitations to mass shootings and attacking law-abiding Oregonians isn’t going to make anyone safer. In fact, it will put us in danger. I will not compromise on the Second Amendment.

SB 978, on Tuesday, April 2nd, will focus on a myriad of issues regarding possession, personal firearm management, and the buying, storing and selling of firearms. If you value your firearms and your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, then please get involved.

(Click here for Location and Agenda)

Send an email to every Democrat in the House and Senate. Phone every Democrat in the House and Senate. The pro-Second Amendment Republicans are in the minority and we will need a few Democrats to vote with us in order to stop these bills. Light up their phones and clog their inboxes with emails, otherwise there is great potential that we will slowly lose our legal protections regarding our Constitutional Rights.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.


It is the argument of tyrants.


It is the creed of slaves.

— William Pitt, in the House of Commons – November 18, 1783

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and Common-sense – 
No one Will.

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Tuesday, March 21, 2017 by devadmin
If a Democrat House member gets his way, the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) will load stiff economic, land and water management problems right into the lap of Oregon’s farmers, ranchers, cattle and dairymen.

All water right holders will find themselves in a swamp-like slough of muddy ground composed of fees, regulatory efforts and exceedingly stiff fines – up to $500 per day. All of these water bills (HB2705, HB2706, HB2707) enlarge government efforts through needless regulation and direct intervention in land and water use.

The happy story masking each of these bills is beneficence, but they really promote a future that is nothing-less-than a government controlled Utopian vision.

Look at the language in HB2705, the Legislative Assembly declares that:

“(a) Water use data is a fundamental tool to ensure efficient management, ensure effective water distribution and help plan for future water needs; and (b) The measurement and reporting of water use benefits all water appropriators and is critical to the effective management of the water resources of this state.”
There is nothing, necessarily, wrong with any of these statements, but the question remains, who will be controlling, cataloging, regulating and managing? And finally, who will be benefiting and how?

All of these things sound perfectly wondrous, so let’s continue reading. The next section of HB2705 shines some light on the details. It reads:

“It is the policy of this state to: (a) Actively promote measurement and reporting of water use by water appropriators; and (b) Encourage federal, state and local government coordination and cooperation in providing financial support to water appropriators for water use measurement and reporting.”
This is top-notch deception.

The phrase “to promote” would not mean “to force”, would it?

That is what the bill requires – force. Why doesn’t the legislation inform the public of this fact? In all honesty the text should read, “(a) Actively force measurement and reporting of water use by water appropriators,” because that is what it does.

Additionally, in the next sub-section, the phrase “encouraging” is nothing but legislative live-bait to make this design sound helpful. There are no details about funding, or financial support anywhere in this bill. It only shows up in the preamble to assure stakeholders that OWRD could be reasonable.

Over the years, Americans, and particularly Oregonians, have been slowly acclimated to similar Utopian visions. We have been led to believe that by some government action this improvement could be made; or by some government sponsored innovation this would be better, or with these regulations some version of effective management could be accomplished.

We are continually told that with some commission, study, or with a little more data the government could improve the conditions of your life, nursery, farm or ranching operation. Over the years these socialist policies have been universally painted with glorious sounding titles – a Square Deal, a New Freedom, a New Deal, a Fair Deal, a New Frontier, and a Great Society.

Now, we are being led to believe that government will “ensure efficient management, ensure effective water distribution and help plan for future water needs.” That language is directly from HB2705.

The truth is, this government entity knows what it doesn’t know. The plan is to force you into providing it. The state doesn’t have any intimate knowledge of your farm, ranch, or agricultural operation and therefore, they can’t easily control or regulate it. But, they hope to control and regulate you.

HB 2705 will force you to provide them with the necessary details and the Water Resources Commission will set the rules which you will be required to follow.

The user or water appropriator does all of the work and bears all of the costs. Remember, in legislative legalese, the word “shall” means “must.” The text reads:

SECTION 3:

(1) A water appropriator shall…

(2) A water appropriator shall…

SECTION 4:

(1) A water appropriator shall…

(2) A water appropriator shall…

However, OWRD is responsible for one thing – issuing fines:

“SECTION 5. The Water Resources Department may assess a civil penalty for violation of section 3 or 4 of this 2017 Act, not to exceed $500. For a continuing violation, each day the violation continues is a separate violation.”
Welcome to OWRD’s vision for your Utopian future…

It should be obvious that these bills were crafted without the critical engagement of impacted water users and stakeholders. These bills don’t offer any benefits to Oregon or the typical water user in my District.

These bills will impose significant costs on already struggling farm, ranch and ag families and the collected monies are not allocated toward meaningful areas of need.

What to do…

I urge water right holders to e-Mail, write, or call, each member of the House Energy & Environment Committee to share their thoughts and suggestions.

The best way to make an impact is to attend the hearing in-person:

March 22nd, 2017 – Wednesday
Hearing Room-D, at 3:00 p.m.
Salem Capital Building
900 Court St. NE
Salem, OR 97301
It is important that you send your statements to each member of the committee. Also, please send your statement to the committee, as an official part of the record. Written, or e-Mailed testimony must be submitted prior to the hearing. Please state at the top whether you are for or against the bills and share your reasons why.

Rep. Reschke serves on the House Energy & Environment committee and has stated his opposition to these bills. Please notify his office if you are planning to attend.

Copies of these bills can be found on the Oregon Legislative Information System (OLIS) at these links:

HB2705
HB2706
HB2707
Please join me in opposition to these bills. They will be heard this Wednesday, March 22, 2017, in the House. These bills may move to the Senate following their House hearing. If you happen to read this article after the March 22, 2017 meeting, please write to your Senator to voice your opinion on these burdensome bills.

If we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will…

State Senator Dennis Linthicum

District 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, March 21, 2018 by devadmin

As I travel, meet and talk with my constituents in Senate District 28 several items always come to the top of our discussion lists. Most people express continued concern for a standard litany of issues: the degradation of our traditional American culture; the need for fewer regulations and obstacles for business; freer markets with fewer tariffs; and a return to our American constitutional roots.

Stop and think for a minute. People want more freedom, smaller government, lower taxes and yet every year the legislature meets and passes hundreds of new laws. Why do we need all of these laws? An Ancient Roman Senator and historian, Tacitus, made the claim, “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.”

I think he understood humanity’s fallen nature correctly.

The 2018 legislative “short-session” scuttled perfectly legitimate efforts aimed at reigning in Oregon’s governmental enterprise. Bipartisanship became the media watchword while the Democratic leadership silently pursued their own progressive political agenda. For those of us in South, Central and Eastern Oregon, this is just a glimpse of what will happen in 2019 if there are no substantial changes in Oregon’s House, Senate or Executive offices.

This well-orchestrated short session circumvented attempts at meaningful change. It also sandbagged citizens by limiting their participation in condensed committee schedules. Therefore, substantial policy issues were forced through without transparency or the time necessary to pursue alternative solutions. Despite these challenges, I and my Senate Republican colleagues effectively stopped numerous hyper-partisan, tax and spend boondoggles from becoming law in 2018.

In particular, two bills which I adamantly opposed were HB 4001 and SB 1507. These two Cap and Trade bills were only used for political posturing and represent the worst of the Democrat’s agenda. They both have insurmountable problems. First, they would burden taxpayers with a minimum of $700 million dollars in extra taxes, annually. Second, neither would make a discernible difference in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Additionally, without any Republican support, the Democrat majority passed SB 1528, which will create a whopping 30% tax increase on Oregon’s sole proprietors, small and family owned businesses and LLC’s.  This partisan tax scheme will force 192,000 small businesses to pay $258 million in 2018 taxes while protecting large multinational corporations who are able to game the system.

Another bill which I supported, HB 4016, never made it out of committee. Environmental groups and tribal interests spoke against this straight-forward and common-sense fix for the Klamath Irrigation District (KID). This bill would have allowed temporary transfers within the KID district boundaries to other land within their boundary.  In KID these place of use changes would have allowed the district to remedy original mapping and boundary errors without exceeding the water right in the original claim.

As I have written in the past, I was a Chief Sponsor of HB 4005 which passed. This bill is intended to help grapple with the high costs of prescription drugs and the harm that patients and consumers experience by exposing the details behind cost increases for pharmaceutical products. This bill only requires reporting for drugs costing more than $100 per month that increase by more than 10% on an annual basis.

I sponsored HB 4100 which also passed. This bill enforces property rights for facilities that provide equine therapy or counseling activities in areas zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU). This will allow specific therapeutic service providers to continue utilizing our abundant natural resources, domesticated livestock and nonclinical rural environments for creating healthy, wholesome and meaningful interactions for their clients.

Another common-sense bill which I sponsored was HB 4008. It passed, making calculations of projected future earnings based on race or ethnicity of a plaintiff inadmissible. Since, we believe that all people carry enormous potential and are each endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, it seems only logical that any civil calculations for projected future earnings reflect those beliefs.

I sponsored and supported HB 4036, which passed. This bill allows home-schooled and public charter school students to participate in various types of interscholastic activities, including sports, band, choir and technical education programs. School Districts can determine the costs and may charge participating students within limits  set by the bill.

My deep appreciation for the lessons of history and the dangers of unconstrained government, will continue to inform my perspective. Only a constitutionally limited government can enable its citizens to reach their fullest potential by defending them against the bureaucracies’ perpetual tendency toward fiscal irresponsibility.

Oregon’s unrelenting drift toward collectivism will eventually swallow us, our families and our businesses without liberty-minded citizen’s and leaders standing up for our individual freedom. Legislators need to be constantly reminded of the ancient words from Tacitus, “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, March 9, 2017 by devadmin
Last summer I re-read C.S. Lewis’ novel, The Screwtape Letters. I am in Salem, for the state legislative session, and I am haunted by an image from that work.

The Screwtape novel is a satirical fantasy which places characters in plot-settings that mimic a typical human life, complete with all its temptations and failings.

The book has a unique format. The story is revealed through a series of written letters rather than the typical first-hand personal interactions which occupy most novels. The letters and notes which flow back and forth between the various parties reveal the heart and soul of Lewis’ main characters. The principal correspondent is Uncle Screwtape, He is a Senior Tempter and serves as the Undersecretary of his department in what Lewis envisages as a sort of infernal and devilish Civil Service.

Screwtape’s letters are posited as advice for his young nephew, Wormwood. Wormwood is a devil-in-training. He is a cohort, if you will, charged with the misguidance of only one man, or patient, as he is known in these instructional posts from the underworld

I would encourage you to find some time to read it. I think you’ll find Lewis’ story and style refreshing and his insight into human nature spot on. (Even though Lewis published this story in 1942.)

One of the more affecting descriptions of this novel comes from Lewis, himself. In Lewis’ original preface, he tells us of a humorous anecdote where a country clergyman had written saying that “much of the advice given in these letters seemed… positively diabolical.

And, it is.

Lewis continues with his introduction to this story by describing his sentiments and his purposeful use of certain symbols for Hell. I’ll note, also, that Lewis confesses to us that he likes bats better than bureaucrats. This sets the stage, for us, where his symbols make for ripe pickings when describing the growing legalese twisting through the marbled corridors of Oregon’s capital.

Lewis writes:

“We live in the Managerial Age, in a world of ‘Admin.’ The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint.

“It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result.

“But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.

“Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business con­cern.

In our lifetimes, we have made drastic policy reversals while striving to advance the seemingly more tolerant positions. Look at health care. Big changes are under-foot in how our culture views health care. Many of today’s policies are incoherent when compared with our age-old ideals that have been codified in law and medicine.

For example, you know the Hippocratic oath by it’s simplicity – ”First do no harm.” Yet, ever since government, through political self-will, has gained control of our lives by leveraging the healthcare industry for power, control and profit, it has become rare to hear the common-sense understanding of the age-old Hippocratic school.

The Hippocratic oath is simple and easy to understand. In the 1800 and 1900’s the latin phrase for this oath was popularly nuanced as, “I will utterly reject harm and mischief.” In modern parlance the tweet-able phrase has two tenants, 1) always help, and, 2) never harm.

But our modern culture has become flooded with a new, yet all-too-common, sort of sterile, bureaucratic tyranny. That combined with the complexities of modern law, and the desire to draw bright-lines around specific situations distorts our clear view of the underlying moral concepts.

One example of that distortion recently came across my desk while reviewing the 2017 Senate Bill, SB 494. Read the irony in the current statute, ORS 127.505, Sec. 9, §(8),

–– “Health care” means diagnosis, treatment or care of disease, injury and congenital or degenerative conditions, including the use, maintenance, withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining procedures and the use, maintenance, withdrawal or withholding of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.

Given this definition, “health care” can mean either treating and caring for a patient, or it can mean withholding nutrition from a patient. In other words, in one breadth we are saying that starving and dehydrating a patient is recognized as “health care.”

Truly, this language was, “conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.” The men and women who dreamed this up had thoroughly blanched hearts hidden beneath their suits, ties, and starched-shirts.

As I understand political theory, human flourishing should be considered as a first principled and a primary aim. Only a well-ordered political community and a well-educated citizenry can achieve that aim. This, then, requires virtuous citizens and virtuous leaders. Without these two foundational supports we will never be able to achieve the liberty we seek, nor the human flourishing we long for.

If we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense –– No one will.

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, February 8, 2017 by devadmin

 “There ought to be a law…” 

Have you every seen something silly or ridiculous and muttered to yourself, “There ought to be a law?”

You and I might say, “There ought to be a law?”  when we see something that we think is ironic, unexpected, or just plain nuts. But, most of the time we realize that people have the freedom to make their own personal choices, even if the house color that they happen to choose isn’t our own favorite color.

Fundamentally, we are each faced with living, and cooperating, in a world with thousands of choices. We must be willing to allow others the same opportunity for free and independent action, unless an individual’s freedom impinges on someone else’s freedom or their personal property.

This is probably easiest to understand in the sense of property. I’m free to purchase and drive my car under obedience to the rules of the road. These rules have been established over time to create what I call “Ordered Liberty.” It is ordered so that there is a smooth  and safe flow of traffic. I have the freedom to go where I wish, when I wish, and the only constraint is that I pay attention to others, allowing them equal freedom while all of us follow the rules.

This may sound like common-sense, and it is, but things quickly go haywire when the legislature gets a little too cocky for our own good. You see, we send men and women to Oregon’s Senate and House and we call them legislators.

As legislators, they feel their job consists of being able to legislate, i.e. to make laws. So, when they get to Salem, what do they do.

They do their jobs, they legislate…

I think this has turned out to be detrimental to Oregon and it’s citizenry.

Why do I think that?

Because we have so many laws and so many regulations that no one can keep track, except the bureaucrats who are payed for their rule making efforts. They also write the enforcement measures, discover the appropriate fee schedule, determine the stiffness of the fines and/or penalties they adjudicate any grievances to determine whether or not they have done their jobs correctly.

Jefferson noted this danger, even during our nation’s earliest years. He said, “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for…”  He continues, describing the nature of a truly free and representative government by adding that it would be one, “in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies… as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

Oregon’s legislature is so busy making new laws, that there isn’t time to focus on the principles of good governance or self-governance.

To date, in the 2017 session, the Legislature has introduced 1,806 measures.

Just how many laws do Oregonians need to ensure that their liberty is protected?

This growth essentially represents the problem with government – that is, it has an uncanny, but natural propensity for growth. It turns out it is worse than germs growing in a lab petri-dish. It is really more akin to our ever-expanding universe.

The American astronomer, Edwin Hubble, discovered in 1929 that the distant galaxies were moving away from our Milky Way system. His observation was generalized into a universal law, known as Hubble’s law, where science can measure the speed and rate of expansion of the universe by observing a redshift in light emanating from distant objects.

It appears our government is experiencing this same natural redshift tendency. It even follows Jefferson’s pattern where the black-ink on our budgetary pages experiences a natural shift towards red. Jefferson described the process, where there is a consistent multiplication of public offices, increases in expenses beyond income, and the growth and entailment of a public debt. This is exactly the path set forth by the governor’s budget.

Additionally, the numbers above only represent the number of acts or measures, not the number of pages within the bill. Some of these bills are short while others are several hundred pages in length. The real impact on law-abiding citizens includes not only these laws but also the administrative costs for creating and enforcing subsequent rules and regulations.

For each of these laws, the bureaucracy creates and writes the regulations and then formulates the rules regarding fines, punishments and enforcement measures. These rules and stipulations might span several thousand more details all spelled out in mind-numbing legalese.

It turns out Oregon doesn’t need any more Legislation. We need some de-Legislators who will lesson the burdens placed on Oregon’s businesses, families and individuals.

Please remember –– if we do not stand up for rural Oregon and common-sense, – no one will.