Debunking Dictatorship Fears: Understanding the Constitution and Presidential Power

Yesterday, June 28th, on the steps of the courthouse, Robert De Niro used a scare tactic, claiming that if Trump were re-elected, he would never leave office and would become a dictator.

It's interesting how people skew their words. Trump once mentioned that if he were elected again, he would be a "dictator for a day" as a metaphor for swiftly reinstating some of his policies and gaining control of the border. However, people have misconstrued this term to mean he intended to become a permanent dictator, just as they misinterpreted his statement about immigrants being "animals."

Robert De Niro's comment about Trump becoming a dictator is concerning, but under the Constitution, it's not feasible. The 20th Amendment ensures the president's term ends at noon on January 20th. If a president refused to leave, enforcement agencies, including the Secret Service, would ensure a peaceful transition of power. Additionally, our Constitution makes establishing a dictatorship nearly impossible. Martial law, an extreme measure, could only be declared under severe national emergencies and is heavily regulated with checks and balances to prevent abuse of power.

Unfortunately, people suffering from severe Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) might actually believe this rhetoric.

In my opinion, whether you like Donald Trump or Joe Biden is your choice. Just be smart, review each candidate, and don't blindly vote for your party.

No on 20-351 road repair bond messure

 No on 20-351 road repair bond messure

Springfield's roads have long had a reputation for being in poor condition, and recent efforts have aimed to address this issue. Now, we're faced with voting on bond measure 20-351, which proposes to fix some of these roads. Supporters argue that the measure would levy a bond of 74 cents per thousand dollars of assessed value, roughly totaling $135 per year ($11.35 per month).

While I acknowledge the pressing need for road repairs—especially considering the costly damages potholes can inflict, such as the $500 repair bill I recently incurred—I'm also grappling with the reality of ever-increasing property taxes. Each year, it becomes more challenging to meet these financial obligations.

Regrettably, after careful consideration, I've decided to vote against this measure. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the matter

**Oregon's New Generator Regulations: A Costly Burden for Consumers in Crisis Times**

🔴 **Oregon and Federal Regulations: A Double Whammy on Generator Access!** 🌩️

In a bid to curb emissions and enhance safety, Oregon’s Senate Bill 525 alongside the CPSC's new proposed rules for portable generators are poised to reshape the landscape of emergency power supply, but at what cost to consumers? Starting January 1, 2026, Oregon will ban the sale of new gas-powered small nonroad engines, including many portable generators, pushing consumers towards more expensive zero-emission alternatives. Concurrently, the CPSC is mandating that all portable generators must include carbon monoxide detection and automatic shutoff features to combat poisoning incidents.

While these measures aim to improve air quality and safety, they introduce a significant financial burden and reduce the availability of affordable and reliable emergency power solutions. This is particularly concerning for areas like Lane County, where residents recently suffered through a freezing spell with power outages lasting more than a week. The new rules could leave many without access to cost-effective generators, forcing them to invest in high-priced alternatives that may not offer the same reliability and ease of use during prolonged power outages.

**Adding Insult to Injury: Overprotection or Overreach?**

Despite warning labels and common sense, there have been tragic incidents of carbon monoxide poisoning from misuse of generators, such as running them indoors or using charcoal grills for heat inside homes. These are clear violations of safety guidelines, yet the CPSC cites these as reasons for stringent new regulations. It seems like another case of the government trying to protect us from ourselves. But as comedian Ron White famously quipped, "You can't fix stupid." These measures, however costly and restrictive, may not prevent reckless decisions but will definitely limit options for sensible consumers who know how to use their equipment safely.

**What Does This Mean for You?**

Expect to see a sharp decrease in the availability of traditional gas-powered generators and a significant increase in the cost of compliant models. For many, especially those in regions prone to power outages and severe weather, the financial impact of these regulations could be severe, limiting access to essential emergency power sources when they are most needed. As Oregon and the federal government push for cleaner and safer technology, they also risk leaving vulnerable populations in the cold—literally and figuratively—without reliable power during critical times.---

This category includes a wide range of equipment commonly used in residential and commercial settings, such as:

• Lawn mowers
• Chainsaws
• Leaf blowers
• Portable generators
• Other similar equipment powered by small engines

Source:

https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Commissioner/Richard-Trumka/Statement/CPSCs-Groundbreaking-Proposed-Rule-for-Portable-Generators-will-Save-Thousands-of-Lives-and-will-Save-1B-a-Year-in-Costs

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/SB525