I. You shall not kill.

II. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm.

III. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events.

IV. Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents.

V. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination and an occasion of sin.

VI. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so.

VII. Support the families of accident victims.

VIII. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness.

IX. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party.

X. Feel responsible toward others.

I received some very interesting responses to the last letter I sent out and some of them deserve a response.  First if it sounded like I was complaining, I was.  But I do this from the perspective of the fact the Democrats won the majority in both Houses and have therefore earned the right to run their own agenda.  I just don’t happen to agree with much of what they are doing.  After the Governor was re-elected he reorganized his staff.  His new chief of staff was the lobbyist for the teacher’s union and his assistant chief of staff was the head of the AFL-CIO which coordinates the other public employee unions.  So it is not surprising to see such a pro union agenda.  A union’s main purpose is to grow and sustain itself.  In the case of public employee unions this can only be achieved by growing government.  This mission runs contrary to the agenda of someone like me who would like to see more efficiency in government.  A prime example of the direction we should be going was uncovered by the Oregonian newspaper last fall.  Their research showed Oregon to have a significantly higher number average of mid management staff in the Department of Human Resources.  In fact, their report showed if we reduced staff to just the national average we could save 200 million dollars a year.  This savings level could fully fund our mental health delivery system and yet we will see no action as it would eliminate government jobs. 

In my last letter I expressed frustration with the new version of the bottle bill.  My opinion is we should not be dumping more of the waste stream on grocery stores and should be looking more towards a real recycling system.  There has been a new development on this front.  After the bill (SB 707) passed the Senate the grocery industry came forward with both a proposal for a comprehensive recycling system and a 60 million dollar commitment to get it started.  This is exactly the direction I think we should be going.  For reasons I can’t understand the leadership of the Legislature has rejected the offer.  I guess redeeming water bottles is more important than establishing a real program. 

We have also spent a great deal of time discussing Measure 37 or land use reform.  In the opinion of the Governor and Legislative leadership the people of Oregon did not know what they were voting for when they passed the measure.  To this end they have proposed sending a measure out to the ballot which would basically overturn Measure 37.  At this point this effort has been stalled because they don’t want it to appear to be partisan, but no Republicans will support it.  They are now trying to just pass a law repealing Measure 37 without going to the people, but even some of the Democrats cannot support this plan.  I hope it fails as I do believe Oregonians knew exactly what they were voting for. 

The last issue I want to bring up in this letter is gay rights (SB 2 and HB 2007).  I do not believe in discrimination and I also believe what people do in their private lives is none of government’s business.  But I opposed both measures and I want you to know why.  My main objections to SB 2 were the fact it gives protected class status to people based on behavior and puts religious and fraternal organizations at risk of a law suit for simply following their beliefs.  Dr. Martin Luther King’s widow was quoted saying “I know many people who used to be gay but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”  I think this sums up the purpose for a protected class designation and with this bill we are going a step too far.  The bill also has the potential of requiring the teaching of alternative lifestyles in our public schools.  HB 2007 deals with legal rights and might have been a good bill if it also talked about legal rights for all rather than just homosexual couples.   

But the core issue here goes beyond these two bills. It is the fact we are moving farther away from a society based on moral principles to a society based on “social relativism”.  When no one is responsible or accountable for their actions we are in jeopardy as a country.  The result of this shift can be seen in an increase in teen pregnancy, alcohol and drug abuse, teen violence, increased divorce rates, and most other social problems facing our society.  In my opinion strong families and strong communities can go along way towards solving most of the social problems facing us.  I also believe without a strong moral foundation neither of these can exist.  I choose to take a stand for American values and against the progressive movement.  In many ways our future is at stake. 

Sincerely, 

Senator Jeff Kruse 

Metro, our tri-county government will likely ask voters to approve new taxes in November of 2008.  Anyone else opposed to adding an extra buck-per-fill-up? 

Certainly, traffic congestion is only going to get worse in the Portland-Metro area.  The Reason Foundation estimates that by 2030, Portland will have worse congestion than Boston or New York (we’ll be doing better than Seattle though). 

I’m sure we could all agree that we want to reduce congestion.  But, I’m not sure why we have to have another tax to do it.

All people should be treated with respect as human beings.  But, speaking as a member of one of these classes, come on!  If this type of legislation keeps up, companies will have to hire new employees by picking a name out of a hat - if they learn too much and then don’t hire someone, they’ll probably be sued.

Dobson and Giuliani part ways on several issues held dear to religious conservatives.  Last week Giuliani affirmed his support for abortion on demand, and is opposed to a federal marriage amendment (though he supports traditional marriage).  Dobson also cited Giuliani’s three marriages as a concern.  Quoting Harry S Truman, he asked “How can I trust a man if his wife can’t?”

Read Dobson’s article here.  Do you think this will have an impact on the Giuliani campaign either way?

I, for one, am glad that Giuliani and Dobson have both made their views clear.

Remember Psalm 24? Verse 1: The eart this the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein. Verse 2: The godly who dwell therein should embrace a global-warming pollution tax and acap-and-trade approach designed to reduce CO2 emissions by over 50 percent. Verse 3: The Panama Canal is America’s, for America founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.

I’ve made up verses two and three to suggest that both the left and right have problems when they argue that all evangelicals should support the specific policy prescriptions that their leaders think are best.

It’s … a large leap to go from the general principle of stewardship to specificity about particular emission controls. Pastors, called to preach and teach what the Bible proclaims, rarely have the expertise to announce with authority which solutions to particular environmental problems are best.

I mention all this because leaders of the mellifluously named Evangelical Climate Initiative are now looking for evangelical leaders to sign a new statement calling for mandatory, federally imposed targets and timetables aimed at bring about specific reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

Isn’t it time to agree not to underuse or overuse the Bible to fit partiuclar policy agendas? Ofthen the bible is clear: It’s fine, combining “you shall not murder” and “you knitted me together in my mother’s womb,” to preach against abortion - but even then pastors should not be proclaiming which set of pro-life tactics will be the most effective. It’s not fine to combine Psalm 24 and … nothing, so as to demand that all Christians support specific environmental or foreign policy proposals.

While certainly protection for rights to privacy in phone conversations is important, the protection of property rights (rights to one’s property) is just as or even mor important.

Property rights are the cornerstone of our entire economic system, and without them our other civil rights could not survive.”

-Bill Moshofsky, President, Oregonians in Action