You can judge me for bEiNg A lEfTiSt RiNo. But I was never a republican. I was never totally right leaning, the extremists would SAY I am right wing, but I never have been full right. I am always center, and I am always going to point out BS if I see it.

Here is where the break happened for me.

HUD programs that directly help low income Americans were targeted for major reductions. Housing programs that keep people off the street, including project based vouchers and rental support programs, were put on the chopping block in the administration’s published 2025 proposals. The FY26 budget request sought a forty three percent cut to public housing, vouchers, and rental assistance, along with a twelve percent cut to homelessness programs. Section 8 was included in the list of programs that would see reduced funding.

Sources: https://www.nlihc.org/resource/trump-administration-releases-additional-details-fy26-budget-request-slashing-hud-rental, https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-budget-public-housing-funding-cuts

Sources: https://apnews.com/article/snap-benefits-trump-administration-demands-undo-states-d433f20df4d461db506e0d327a58d3c1, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/10/snap-workers-trump-administration-funding

Sources: https://www.medicarerights.org/medicare-watch/2025/11/13/shutdown-to-end-but-access-to-affordable-aca-marketplace-plans-still-at-risk, https://www.ajmc.com/view/government-shutdown-concluded-but-aca-subsidies-in-limbo, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/tracking-the-medicaid-provisions-in-the-2025-budget-bill

Sources: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-epstein-files-maga-anger-fbi-patel-committee-2025-1923459, https://www.newsweek.com/pam-bondi-epstein-client-list-justice-department-statement-2025-1923375

And the idea that only Trump was connected to Epstein is false. Epstein’s network included figures from both political parties. Bill Clinton had multiple documented flights on Epstein’s jet. Major Democratic donors and academics had documented associations. Unsealed documents in 2024 listed more than one hundred seventy Epstein associates across politics, business, and academia.

Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/04/epstein-documents-unsealed-list, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/10/us/epstein-gates-ito-mit.html

So when political influencers promise transparency and deliver nothing, and when both sides point fingers while ignoring their own, it shows the depth of the problem. The system protects powerful circles, not Americans.

I am still all about making America great again. I always have been. I just do not think Trump is heading in that direction anymore, and many are locked into loyalty that prevents them from admitting what is in front of them.

If we say America First, then the people living on American soil, struggling, should not be last.

Explain funding shift. Goal -> Inform. Viz -> HTML/CSS diagram. Interaction -> None. Justification -> A simple, static visual is the clearest way to show the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of the money trail. Method -> Tailwind Flexbox. 2. Local Budget Simulation: Info -> Local service funding. Goal -> Compare. Viz -> Doughnut Chart. Interaction -> Buttons toggle data between ‘Local Control’ and ‘State Control’ scenarios. Justification -> Interactively showing how funding priorities could be forcibly changed is far more impactful than text alone. Library -> Chart.js. 3. Eaton County Township Funding Divide: Info -> Disparate voting outcomes. Goal -> Organize/Compare. Viz -> Simplified HTML/CSS map/blocks. Interaction -> Clicking on regions updates a text panel with specific outcomes. Justification -> This visually represents the urban/rural divide and connects geography to policy consequences. Method -> HTML/CSS/JS. (Title changed from ‘Millage Map’ to ‘Funding Divide’ for accuracy.) 4. Service Impact Cards: Info -> Cuts to local services. Goal -> Inform. Viz -> Icon-based cards. Interaction -> None. Justification -> A scannable, visually clear format to present the direct, negative consequences of funding shortfalls. Method -> Tailwind Grid. 5. Urban vs. Rural Population: Info -> State political power balance. Goal -> Compare. Viz -> Bar Chart. Interaction -> None. Justification -> A bar chart provides an immediate, powerful visual of the population disparity that underpins the ‘loss of control’ argument for rural areas. Library -> Chart.js. –> /* Base styles suitable for embedding, minimizing external dependencies */ body { font-family: ‘Inter’, sans-serif; background-color: #f8fafc; /* slate-50 */ } /* Style to ensure Chart.js canvas respects its container for responsiveness */ .chart-container { position: relative; width: 100%; max-width: 450px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; height: 300px; max-height: 400px; } @media (min-width: 768px) { .chart-container { height: 350px; } } /* Interactive styling for the map/block areas */ .map-area { transition: transform 0.2s ease-in-out, box-shadow 0.2s ease-in-out; } .map-area:hover { transform: translateY(-4px); box-shadow: 0 10px 15px -3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1), 0 4px 6px -2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.05); } .map-area.active { transform: translateY(-2px); box-shadow: 0 0 0 3px #fbbf24; /* amber-400 */ } /* Custom scroll-margin for sticky nav targets */ .scroll-mt-20 { scroll-margin-top: 5rem; }

Michigan’s Property Tax Repeal: Who Really Loses Control?

A citizen-led movement, **AxMITAX**, proposes eliminating all property taxes in Michigan. Proponents promise the largest tax cut in state history, but critics warn of a catastrophic loss of local control, shifting funding power to Lansing and threatening essential services. This analysis explores the proposal’s mechanics, the risks to community autonomy, and the real-world consequences already unfolding in places like **Eaton County**.

How Local Funding Would Change

The core of the debate centers on who controls the purse strings: local voters or state legislators. The AxMITAX plan would replace dedicated, locally controlled property tax revenue with state-allocated funds from increased sales and excise taxes.

Current System: Local Control

1

Property owners pay taxes **directly** to local municipalities (city, township, county).

▼

2

Local elected officials set millage rates based on **community needs and voter approval**.

▼

3

Funds are used for specific local services: police, fire, libraries, parks, and roads.

Proposed AxMITAX System: State Control

1

Property taxes are eliminated. The state increases the **sales tax** and adds new excise taxes.

▼

2

All tax revenue goes to a **state-controlled fund in Lansing**.

▼

3

The state legislature allocates funds back to communities, with **no guarantee** they match local needs or priorities.

Simulating the Impact on a Local Budget

Local property taxes give communities **direct control** over service funding. This simulation shows how a typical local budget might be re-prioritized if funding decisions were shifted to the state level, where local needs may be overlooked. Click the buttons to see the potential shift.

Local Control (Current) Simulate State Control

Policy analysts and the Michigan Municipal League (MML) have highlighted the dangers of shifting funding power to Lansing. The MML suggests this would be the most **’detrimental’ policy**, turning funding decisions into a political process that may not represent rural priorities or guarantee adequate school funding (WKAR, MML).

Eaton County on the Front Lines

Eaton County provides a stark, real-world example of what happens when communities face funding shortfalls. The current system relies on county-wide millage votes, but a growing divide between more prosperous townships and rural areas highlights the vulnerabilities.

Township Funding Divide: Delta vs. Rural Areas (Interactive)

Delta Township

Prosperous Area Vote Pattern

Rural Eaton County

Service-Dependent Area Vote Pattern

Click an area to see details

This illustrates how areas like **Delta Township** (Lansing State Journal) often pass dedicated local millages, ensuring their services are maintained, while rural communities remain vulnerable to failed **countywide** votes (Eaton County official millage info).

---

Consequences of Failed Millages: Services Cut

🚓

Sheriff Patrols

After a failed millage, the Sheriff’s office faced a deficit and cut road patrols (Fox47News, WKAR). Local residents report a decline in public safety, noting, “We’re on our own out here,” reflecting the growing gap between service-rich and service-poor areas (Local Anecdote, WKAR).

🌳

Parks & Recreation

County park maintenance has been reduced. In contrast, Delta Township maintains high-quality, programmed funding for its own parks, demonstrating the ability of wealthier areas to bypass the countywide service decline (Lansing State Journal, Local Anecdote).

🚌

Public Transit

The Eaton County Transportation Authority (EATRAN) has faced funding deficits due to failed millage proposals (WKAR). This service reduction disproportionately affects rural, non-driving residents who rely on the service for essential needs.

Broader Implications: The Urban vs. Rural Power Dynamic

If AxMITAX passes, Eaton County’s internal conflicts would scale to a statewide level. Resource allocation would be influenced by the legislature, whose decisions are often guided by the priorities of dense, urban, and suburban population centers.

Michigan Population Distribution and Political Influence

This chart illustrates how the population of just a few major counties (e.g., Wayne, Oakland, Macomb) outweighs that of numerous rural counties combined. Rural, often ‘red’ counties risk losing autonomy entirely under a ‘blue’ majority state government that controls all resource allocation, a concern highlighted in public debates (Reddit/r/Michigan).

The elimination of property taxes promises relief, but the price is the fundamental power of local voters to fund their own police, parks, and schools. For less prosperous or rural communities, who stands to lose the most is clear: **those who can least afford to ‘do without’ will be subject to state-level political decisions made miles away.**

document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’, () => { // Data for Charts const localBudgetData = { labels: [‘Police & Fire’, ‘Public Schools’, ‘Roads & Infrastructure’, ‘Parks & Libraries’, ‘Admin & Other’], datasets: [{ label: ‘Budget Allocation’, data: [35, 40, 10, 10, 5], backgroundColor: [‘#0ea5e9’, ‘#10b981’, ‘#f59e0b’, ‘#84cc16’, ‘#64748b’], }] }; const stateBudgetData = { labels: [‘Police & Fire’, ‘Public Schools’, ‘Roads & Infrastructure’, ‘Parks & Libraries’, ‘Admin & Other’], datasets: [{ label: ‘Budget Allocation’, data: [30, 45, 15, 3, 7], // Simulating shifted priorities: more roads, less parks, slightly less police backgroundColor: [‘#3b82f6’, ‘#22c55e’, ‘#f97316’, ‘#ef4444’, ‘#94a3b8’], }] }; const populationData = { labels: [‘Wayne Co.’, ‘Oakland Co.’, ‘Macomb Co.’, ‘Kent Co.’, ‘Genesee Co.’, ‘Next 10 Counties’, ‘Remaining 70 Counties’], datasets: [{ label: ‘Population (approx.)’, data: [1750000, 1250000, 880000, 650000, 400000, 1500000, 2500000], backgroundColor: ‘#0ea5e9’, borderColor: ‘#0284c7’, borderWidth: 1 }] }; // Chart.js Configuration const chartOptions = (title) => ({ responsive: true, maintainAspectRatio: false, plugins: { legend: { position: ‘bottom’, labels: { padding: 15, font: { size: 12 } } }, title: { display: true, text: title, font: { size: 16, weight: ‘600’ }, padding: { top: 10, bottom: 20 } }, tooltip: { callbacks: { label: function(context) { let label = context.label || ”; if (label) { label += ‘: ‘; } if (context.parsed.y !== null) { label += context.parsed.y.toLocaleString(); } else if (context.parsed !== null) { label += context.parsed.toLocaleString() + ‘%’; } return label; } } } }, cutout: ‘50%’ }); const barChartOptions = (title) => ({ responsive: true, maintainAspectRatio: false, indexAxis: ‘y’, scales: { x: { beginAtZero: true, ticks: { callback: function(value) { return (value / 1000000) + ‘M’; } } }, y: { ticks: { autoSkip: false } } }, plugins: { legend: { display: false }, title: { display: true, text: title, font: { size: 16, weight: ‘600’ }, padding: { top: 10, bottom: 20 } }, tooltip: { callbacks: { label: function(context) { return ‘Population: ‘ + context.parsed.x.toLocaleString(); } } } } }); // Chart Initialization const budgetCtx = document.getElementById(‘localBudgetChart’).getContext(‘2d’); const localBudgetChart = new Chart(budgetCtx, { type: ‘doughnut’, data: localBudgetData, options: chartOptions(‘Typical Local Budget Under Local Control’) }); const popCtx = document.getElementById(‘populationChart’).getContext(‘2d’); new Chart(popCtx, { type: ‘bar’, data: populationData, options: barChartOptions(‘Concentration of Political Power by Population’) }); // Interaction Logic for Budget Chart const localControlBtn = document.getElementById(‘localControlBtn’); const stateControlBtn = document.getElementById(‘stateControlBtn’); localControlBtn.addEventListener(‘click’, () => { localBudgetChart.data = localBudgetData; localBudgetChart.options.plugins.title.text = ‘Typical Local Budget Under Local Control’; localBudgetChart.update(); localControlBtn.classList.remove(‘bg-slate-300’, ‘text-slate-800’); localControlBtn.classList.add(‘bg-sky-500’, ‘text-white’); stateControlBtn.classList.add(‘bg-slate-300’, ‘text-slate-800’); stateControlBtn.classList.remove(‘bg-red-500’, ‘text-white’); }); stateControlBtn.addEventListener(‘click’, () => { localBudgetChart.data = stateBudgetData; localBudgetChart.options.plugins.title.text = ‘Simulated Budget Under State Control’; localBudgetChart.update(); stateControlBtn.classList.remove(‘bg-slate-300’, ‘text-slate-800’); stateControlBtn.classList.add(‘bg-red-500’, ‘text-white’); localControlBtn.classList.add(‘bg-slate-300’, ‘text-slate-800’); localControlBtn.classList.remove(‘bg-sky-500’, ‘text-white’); }); // Interaction Logic for Eaton County Map const mapDelta = document.getElementById(‘map-delta’); const mapRural = document.getElementById(‘map-rural’); const mapInfoTitle = document.getElementById(‘map-info-title’); const mapInfoText = document.getElementById(‘map-info-text’); const mapInfoContent = { delta: { title: ‘Delta Township: Self-Funded’, text: ‘As a more populated and affluent area, Delta Township voters regularly approve local millages to fund their own enhanced services, including well-maintained parks, public safety, and infrastructure. They are less reliant on county-wide funding initiatives, which often fail.’ }, rural: { title: ‘Rural Areas: Reliant on County’, text: ‘Less populated rural townships depend on county-wide millages for essential services like sheriff patrols and transit. When these countywide millages fail—often due to lack of support from larger townships—rural residents experience direct service cuts first.’ } }; function updateMapSelection(activeArea) { [mapDelta, mapRural].forEach(area => area.classList.remove(‘active’)); activeArea.classList.add(‘active’); } mapDelta.addEventListener(‘click’, () => { mapInfoTitle.textContent = mapInfoContent.delta.title; mapInfoText.textContent = mapInfoContent.delta.text; updateMapSelection(mapDelta); }); mapRural.addEventListener(‘click’, () => { mapInfoTitle.textContent = mapInfoContent.rural.title; mapInfoText.textContent = mapInfoContent.rural.text; updateMapSelection(mapRural); }); });

Exodus 22:25 — If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. Do not exploit the poor when lending.

Exodus 23:6 — Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. Do not deny justice to the poor in court.

Leviticus 19:9–10 — And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God. Leave food for the poor.

Leviticus 25:35 — And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Relieve the poor so they may live.

Deuteronomy 15:7–8 — If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth. Do not harden your heart against the poor.

Deuteronomy 15:11 — For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land. Command to always give generously.

Deuteronomy 24:12–15 — And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge: In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee: and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy. Do not oppress poor workers.

Deuteronomy 26:12 — When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled. Set aside tithes to feed the poor.

Job 5:15–16 — But he saveth the poor from the sword, from their mouth, and from the hand of the mighty. So the poor hath hope, and iniquity stoppeth her mouth. God delivers the poor.

Job 29:12 — Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. Job helped the poor and fatherless.

Job 30:25 — Did not I weep for him that was in trouble? was not my soul grieved for the poor? Job grieved for the poor.

Job 31:16–17 — If I have withheld the poor from their desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail; Or have eaten my morsel myself alone, and the fatherless hath not eaten thereof. Job testifies he did not withhold from the poor.

Psalm 9:18 — For the needy shall not alway be forgotten: the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever. The poor will not be forgotten by God.

Psalm 12:5 — For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. God rises up because of oppression.

Psalm 34:6 — This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles. God hears and saves the poor.

Psalm 35:10 — All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him? God delivers the poor from oppressors.

Psalm 37:14 — The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. The wicked target the poor.

Psalm 40:17 — But I am poor and needy; yet the Lord thinketh upon me: thou art my help and my deliverer; make no tarrying, O my God. God is help to the poor.

Psalm 41:1 — Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. Blessing for considering the poor.

Psalm 72:12–13 — For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy. God spares and saves the poor.

Psalm 82:3–4 — Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. Command to defend the poor.

Proverbs 14:21 — He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he. Mercy on the poor brings blessing.

Proverbs 14:31 — He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: but he that honoureth him hath mercy on the poor. Oppressing the poor insults God.

Proverbs 17:5 — Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker: and he that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished. Mocking the poor reproaches God.

Proverbs 19:17 — He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again. Helping the poor is lending to God.

Proverbs 21:13 — Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard. Ignoring the poor leads to being ignored.

Proverbs 22:9 — He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor. Blessing for generosity.

Proverbs 22:22–23 — Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate: For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Do not rob or oppress the poor.

Proverbs 28:27 — He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse. Giving prevents lack, hiding brings curses.

Proverbs 29:7 — The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it. The righteous care about the poor.

Proverbs 31:9 — Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy. Defend the poor and needy.

Isaiah 1:17 — Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Command to relieve the oppressed.

Isaiah 3:15 — What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of hosts. Condemnation for crushing the poor.

Isaiah 10:2 — To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey. Condemnation of injustice against the poor.

Isaiah 25:4 — For thou hast been a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat. God is strength for the poor.

Isaiah 41:17 — When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, I the Lord will hear them. God promises to hear the poor.

Isaiah 58:7 — Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him? True religion is feeding the poor.

Jeremiah 22:16 — He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the Lord. Knowing God means defending the poor.

Ezekiel 16:49 — Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. Sodom’s sin included neglecting the poor.

Ezekiel 18:7 — And hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment. The righteous feed and clothe the poor.

Ezekiel 22:29 — The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy. Condemnation of oppressing the poor.

Amos 2:6 — They sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes. Condemnation for selling the poor.

Amos 5:11 — Forasmuch therefore as your treading is upon the poor, and ye take from him burdens of wheat. Woe to those who trample the poor.

Amos 8:6 — That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes. Condemnation for exploiting the poor.

Zechariah 7:10 — And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor. Do not oppress the poor.

Malachi 3:5 — And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless. God will judge oppressors of the poor.

---

Matthew 6:3–4 — But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret. Give to the poor in secret.

Matthew 19:21 — If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. Jesus commands giving to the poor.

Matthew 25:35 — For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. The righteous are praised for helping the needy.

Mark 10:21 — One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor. Giving to the poor is following Christ.

Mark 12:43 — This poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury. God values the poor widow’s gift.

Luke 3:11 — He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Share food and clothing.

Luke 4:18 — The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. Jesus’ mission includes the poor.

Luke 6:20 — Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessing to the poor.

Luke 6:30 — Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. Give freely.

Luke 12:33 — Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old. Give to the poor and gain treasure in heaven.

Luke 14:13 — But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. Invite the poor and needy.

Luke 16:20–21 — And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores. The rich man is condemned for neglecting Lazarus.

Luke 19:8 — Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. Zacchaeus pledges to give to the poor.

Acts 2:44–45 — And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Early church shared with the poor.

Acts 4:34–35 — Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold. No believer lacked because they gave to the poor.

Acts 11:29 — Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea. Disciples sent aid to the poor.

Acts 20:35 — It is more blessed to give than to receive. Command to support the weak.

Romans 12:13 — Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. Share with those in need.

Romans 15:26 — To make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. Churches gave to the poor.

2 Corinthians 8:14 — But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want. Give from abundance to supply needs.

2 Corinthians 9:7 — Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly. God loves cheerful giving.

Galatians 2:10 — Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. Apostles commanded remembrance of the poor.

Ephesians 4:28 — Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, that he may have to give to him that needeth. Work to give to the poor.

1 Timothy 6:18 — That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate. The rich are commanded to give.

Hebrews 13:16 — But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Do not forget to share.

James 1:27 — Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction. True religion is helping the poor.

James 2:5–6 — Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith? But ye have despised the poor. Condemnation for scorning the poor.

James 2:15–16 — If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful. Faith without helping the poor is worthless.

1 John 3:17 — But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? Withholding from the poor proves no love of God.

---

Title: End the Secrecy: Judicial Overreach in the Aaron Spencer Case

A Lonoke County judge entered a sweeping gag and sealing order after Aaron Spencer intervened to stop a man already charged with abusing his child. The Arkansas Supreme Court has now granted Spencer’s petition for certiorari and vacated that order as a gross abuse of discretion. That is the correct constitutional result.

On May 29, 2025, the Arkansas Supreme Court finally vacated Lonoke County Circuit Judge Barbara Elmore’s unconstitutional gag order in Spencer v. State of Arkansas (2025 Ark. 91). While the court correctly identified the order as a “gross abuse of discretion,” their ruling was unfortunately compromised by leaving open the possibility for a “more narrowly tailored” gag order.

This qualification itself is constitutionally problematic. Any attempt to gag Aaron Spencer—whether broad or narrow—represents judicial overreach and a violation of fundamental constitutional rights.

The Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision rightly acknowledged that Judge Elmore’s gag order was “far too broad” and “impermissibly vague.” The court recognized that the order violated Spencer’s First Amendment rights to free speech and his Sixth Amendment rights to a public trial. Yet, in a display of judicial caution, the court suggested that a more narrowly tailored gag order might somehow pass constitutional muster.

This suggestion reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional principles. The notion that any gag order could be constitutionally applied to Aaron Spencer is itself contrary to established First Amendment jurisprudence.

Prior restraint doctrine is crystal clear. The Supreme Court has held that prior restraints are “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” See Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559–61 (1976). Such restraints require proof of a specific, imminent threat to fair trial rights, serious consideration of alternatives, and narrow tailoring on the record. Criminal proceedings are presumptively open to the public and press. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 571–81 (1980); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 505–10 (1984).

The Lonoke order failed these standards spectacularly. But any future order would necessarily fail as well, because the very act of silencing a father who acted to protect his child from a known predator is itself an attack on fundamental constitutional principles.

When judges violate their oath to uphold the Constitution by suppressing speech that is central to public discourse and the administration of justice, they are engaging in judicial overreach of the highest order. They are replacing our constitutional system with one of arbitrary judicial power, where fundamental rights exist only at the pleasure of the bench.

There is only a narrow lane where speech limits may stand. In Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32–37 (1984), the Court upheld a protective order restricting dissemination of information obtained through compelled discovery that was not yet part of the public record. That rule does not authorize blanket bans on speaking about hearings, filings, or a pending criminal case. The Spencer gag was not a discovery order. The Arkansas Supreme Court vacated it because it was overbroad and unsupported.

Federal appellate courts have policed trial-participant gags the same way. The Sixth Circuit vacated a broad speech ban as a direct prior restraint in CBS, Inc. v. Young, 522 F.2d 234, 237–42 (6th Cir. 1975). The Seventh Circuit used mandamus to undo an order lacking specific findings of a serious and imminent threat in Chase v. Robson, 435 F.2d 1059, 1061–63 (7th Cir. 1970). The Fourth Circuit condemned a sweeping participant gag and ordered it vacated in In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 796–803 (4th Cir. 2018).

Arkansas law aligns with this doctrine. In Arkansas Democrat-Gazette v. Zimmerman, 341 Ark. 771, 781–84, 20 S.W.3d 301, 306–09 (2000), the Arkansas Supreme Court held that a gag on the press was an unconstitutional prior restraint and emphasized the heavy presumption against validity and the need for narrow tailoring. That same court has now applied those principles in Spencer, but with the problematic qualification that some future violation might be acceptable.

The facts that now appear in public filings are straightforward. Michael Fosler, a retired police chief, had been charged months earlier with sexual offenses against Spencer’s minor daughter and was out on bond subject to a no-contact order. Spencer found his missing daughter in Fosler’s truck. A confrontation followed, and Fosler died of gunshot wounds. Those are the case facts as summarized in the Arkansas Supreme Court opinion.

Under Arkansas justification statutes, force in defense of a person is permissible, and deadly force is justified where the actor reasonably believes the other person is committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence or is using or about to use unlawful deadly force. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-606; § 5-2-607. On these facts, the defense-of-others justification is squarely implicated.

My opinion, grounded in the cases and the statute:

1. The judge’s order was unconstitutional, and any future gag order would be equally unconstitutional. The Arkansas Supreme Court was right to vacate the order but wrong to suggest that a more narrowly tailored version might be acceptable. This qualification itself constitutes a failure of the court to fully protect constitutional rights.
2. The court should be sued and enjoined from re-issuing any speech restrictions that do not satisfy strict scrutiny. Appropriate relief includes declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction premised on the prior-restraint line of cases and Arkansas precedent in Zimmerman. Any judge who attempts to impose such restrictions is engaging in judicial overreach.
3. The judge should face removal and discipline for violating clearly established First Amendment law. This conduct represents a serious abuse of judicial power and a violation of the judge’s constitutional oath. The practical remedies are impeachment, censure, and professional sanctions.
4. Aaron Spencer should walk. Arkansas law codifies defense of others. The record reflects an active, repeat threat to a minor and a violation of a no-contact order. On these facts, justification is a viable path to acquittal. Any attempt to silence him about these facts is an abuse of judicial power that violates fundamental constitutional rights.

Open the records. Keep the courtroom open. Apply the First Amendment and Arkansas justification law as written. Hold judges accountable who violate their constitutional oaths. Then send Spencer home.

Since President Trump took office again in January 2025, significant policy shifts and funding cuts have dramatically reshaped federal support for homeless and mental health services. These actions collectively threaten to increase homelessness across the United States.

Housing Program Cuts

Immediately upon taking office, the Trump administration froze federal housing and community grants, causing uncertainty and disruptions to rental assistance, shelter operations, and public housing maintenance nationwide. The National Low Income Housing Coalition explicitly warned that prolonged delays could force shelters to shut down.

President Trump’s FY2026 budget proposal includes a 44% reduction in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) affordable housing, homelessness, and community development programs. Specifically, HUD’s Homeless Assistance Grants face a $532 million (12%) cut compared to FY2025 levels. The National Alliance to End Homelessness described these cuts as the most significant rollback of homelessness funding since the 1987 McKinney–Vento Act, noting the potential loss of federal support for over 166,000 units of permanent supportive housing.

The administration also proposes consolidating HUD’s Continuum of Care homelessness program into a reduced block grant, potentially defunding essential services like supportive housing and outreach. Bipartisan Senate appropriations leaders described this proposal as devastating, warning it could severely reduce housing support and increase homelessness.

Additionally, HUD’s internal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative recommended terminating housing improvement programs such as the Green and Resilient Retrofit Program, jeopardizing planned upgrades for over 30,000 affordable housing units. Cuts also target fair housing enforcement programs, effectively removing protections against housing discrimination for marginalized groups.

Mental Health Service Reductions

Parallel cuts have severely affected mental health services critical to preventing homelessness. In March 2025, the administration rescinded $1 billion from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), negatively impacting mental health and addiction treatment programs nationwide, including counseling, outpatient services, and residential rehabilitation programs.

Furthermore, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” signed into law in July 2025, significantly reduced Medicaid funding by nearly $1 trillion over ten years, potentially stripping healthcare access from over 12 million Americans. Medicaid is crucial for funding mental health and substance use treatment, and its reduction exacerbates vulnerabilities associated with homelessness.

The FY2026 federal budget proposal further threatens critical mental health programs. It includes a nearly 15% ($1.1 billion) reduction in SAMHSA funding and a 40% ($18 billion) cut to the National Institutes of Health, undermining mental health research. Programs such as specialized crisis support lines for LGBTQ youth, community behavioral health clinics, and Assertive Community Treatment teams face potential elimination, leaving individuals without support until they reach crisis points.

Punitive Approaches and Enforcement Measures

Instead of expanding housing or mental health resources, the administration prioritized punitive measures. The July 2025 executive order “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” urges cities and states to dismantle homeless encampments and use involuntary civil commitment for individuals with severe mental health or addiction issues. This order reverses previous legal protections and incentivizes stringent enforcement policies through federal grant priorities.

Critically, the order eliminates federal support for “Housing First” approaches, previously allowing housing without mandatory sobriety or treatment. Harm-reduction services such as supervised drug consumption sites and syringe exchange programs are now barred from federal funding, pushing vulnerable individuals away from potentially lifesaving interventions.

Growing Homelessness Crisis

These combined housing and mental health cuts, alongside heightened enforcement strategies, come at a moment when homelessness rates have surged dramatically. In 2024, homelessness reached 771,500 people nationally, an 18% increase from the previous year. Advocates universally warn that recent federal policies will deepen the crisis, pushing more individuals onto streets or into overcrowded shelters and institutions.

Experts describe these combined reductions as a “perfect storm,” predicting severe, lasting impacts on vulnerable communities. Without adequate federal support, local governments and nonprofits face significant challenges in effectively addressing homelessness. The National Homelessness Law Center and the National Alliance to End Homelessness predict increased homelessness and instability, emphasizing that the administration’s actions remove critical preventative resources.

In conclusion, the Trump administration’s policy direction since January 2025 represents a fundamental withdrawal of federal support from housing stability and mental health services, replacing proven strategies with punitive measures likely to worsen homelessness nationwide.