By David N. Bass
Carolina Journal
North Carolina House lawmakers are pushing forward a bill to study whether larger public school districts would function better as smaller ones.
Lawmakers in the House K-12 Education Committee considered the measure, House Bill 82, on Tuesday. The bill would create a study commission to evaluate whether the size of public school districts impacts the quality of education provided to students. The commission would explore topics such as resource allocation, student performance, and operational efficiencies in both small and large districts, as well as consider possible recommendations for changes.
Supporters argue that the study could provide valuable data to inform decisions on educational funding and restructuring.
Rep. Donny Lambeth, R-Forsyth, is a primary sponsor of the bill. He said that almost a third of North Carolina kids go to the five largest school districts in the state, but the top-performing districts are all lower-enrollment districts. He added that North Carolina ranks 43rd among the 50 states in terms of the size of school districts.
“We’ve got reinvent education in North Carolina,” Lambeth said. “We’ve done some good things, but we haven’t done enough. If you look at enrollments in our K-12 schools, it’s going down, all across the state. Parents have other options, and they’re choosing those other options in part because of better performance and lower number of kids enrolled.”
Critics say that any potential recommendations that could lead to significant restructuring without careful consideration of community impact.
“I question how breaking up a school district like the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system or the Wake County school system is actually going to net an improvement to students without reducing say, for example, the buying power of the larger districts when it comes to purchasing supplies or when it comes to filling teacher vacancies,” said Rep. Laura Budd, D-Mecklenburg.
The commission would be comprised of nine members: A chair appointed jointly by Senate and House leadership, two members appointed by the House speaker, two members appointed by the Senate president, two additional members appointed by House and Senate leadership from the school boards of the five largest districts, and two members recommended by the Department of Public Instruction.
The proposed structure of the commission drew questions from Democrats during the committee hearing.
“I think we would all like education to be nonpartisan,” said Rep. Cynthia Ball, D-Wake, “When I look at how the membership would be appointed, it is primarily by the leaders of our House and Senate, in the majority. Even the members of the Department of Public Instruction are jointly appointed. So, I just make the comment that perhaps the bill could be improved … if the makeup of the committee was different.”
David Bass is a senior contributor to the Carolina Journal.
Breaking up large school districts in North Carolina is a complex issue with potential benefits and major drawbacks, especially in the context of Trump’s push to eliminate the Department of Education. If the federal ED is dismantled, the burden on state and local governments will increase significantly, affecting funding, taxation, and educational equity.
Larger school districts benefit from economies of scale, allowing them to negotiate better deals for teacher salaries, supplies, and transportation. Smaller districts may lose this purchasing power, forcing counties to either increase local taxes or cut programs to compensate. This issue becomes even more severe if the federal ED is eliminated, as states would lose billions in federal education funding. Additionally, large districts help distribute resources more equitably among schools, ensuring that lower-income areas receive proper funding. Breaking them up could increase disparities, with wealthier districts thriving while poorer ones struggle. Without federal oversight, the risk of underfunding education in lower-income communities would only grow.
Another major concern is teacher recruitment and retention. Larger districts often provide better salaries, benefits, and professional development opportunities, while smaller districts may struggle to attract and retain qualified teachers. Additionally, centralized services—such as transportation, special education, and administration—are more efficient in larger districts. Splitting them up would increase administrative costs, leaving less money directly for students and teachers.
The proposed study commission’s structure raises even more concerns about political control over education, as its members would largely be appointed by legislative leaders. If the federal ED is eliminated, state and local governments would have full control over education policies, making them even more susceptible to political shifts. Without federal oversight and funding, the burden would shift entirely to states and counties, making it harder to maintain educational quality—especially in poorer communities.
Maybe that’s the intent. Masquerading as a commission, this is actually the NC Republicans’ plan to take control of education. You can imagine the curriculum will have a Christian nationalist bent that removes personal freedoms, limits the right of personal expression, and likely mandates the teaching of Christian studies. I’m sure that’s the goal—turning North Carolina into a Christian state. I won’t begin to list the laws this violates, including the clear principle of separation of church and state. If the federal ED disappears, there would be no oversight to prevent these shifts, allowing Christian nationalist legislators to reshape public education into a religious ideological system rather than a place for diverse learning and critical thinking. Given the blatant constitutional violations, it’s almost certain that legal challenges and lawsuits will follow, though that may be exactly what these lawmakers want—a prolonged court battle that further entrenches their agenda while public education systems suffer.
If North Carolina lawmakers are serious about improving education, they should focus on funding equity, teacher retention, and curriculum improvements rather than restructuring districts in a way that would create more problems than solutions. Splitting large districts would ultimately exacerbate inequalities, increase local tax burdens, and make education funding less efficient, particularly in a post-Department of Education landscape. But perhaps creating a weaker, fractured system is the point—one that’s easier to control and manipulate to serve a broader ideological agenda.
Hello Mr. Johnson, former teacher here. Although I agree that we don’t need redistricting, I disagree with a few of your thoughts on Christians. Since you do not understand the Christian stance of certain topics, let me help you.
1. Personal freedoms – Christians believe in “free will”. Free will to make horrible choices and free will to make great choices. And when it comes to people’s choices, although we may not agree with them, we respect their free will, and pray for them. Jesus, Our Lord and Savior, does not “force” you to submit to Him or His followers…that is an Islamic belief. Notably, Christians have been told to be tolerant (less free) for many, many years, but it appears those telling Christians to be tolerant have become the thing they said they hated…intolerant.
2. Limiting personal expression – Once again, although we prefer modestly and avoiding anything that brings shame to God, we understand, once again, that people have “free will” to express themselves, within the confines of public law of course. Therefore, most Christians understand in a free society that they cannot “limit your personal expression”…that also is an Islamic belief.
3. Christian Studies Classes – Perhaps you could have used a “Christian Studies” class in school as you clearly rely on assumptions and what you have been fed to unsuccessfully stereotype 2.6 billion people around the world. Maybe you should get a Christian friend…we really are not scary and mean like the media portrays us. Personally, I believe American students need to focus on core curriculum such as Math, Science, Technology, English, World/U.S. History and we need more rigorous physical education. We are falling behind internationally and our Nation’s children are living idle, less productive lives; leading to spikes in diabetes, cancer, obesity and mind-altering drug dependencies. Lastly, we do need elective classes; to include Christian Studies, or ANY religious studies. All religions, whether you agree with them or not, are a part of the world we live in and they can help us know our neighbor and empathize with them.
4. Christian Nationalism – This is a made up term from the American Media. It is not found in the Holy Bible and I do not know a single, solitary Christian that believes we will ever have a Christian Nation in America. Nor have I EVER heard that preached as a possibility. Christians are concerned with building the Kingdom of Heaven’s population, not America’s. The reason…we have read the end of the story and Christian Nationalism is NOT in the cards. We do not tend to think worldly, but instead, we tend to think Heavenly.
5. The Department of Education (ED) – They are long overdue an overhaul. Anytime you purchase something expensive, you expect it to be the best. Well, the ED is expensive and it is not the best. In fact, spending is going up, but performance is going down on the international stage. It’s time to ask ourselves…”what is the purpose of the public education system?” It’s certainly not to make the numbers look good and push unprepared kids through the system. All graduates should be equipped to enter either the workforce, military, or college.
6. Equity – I remember that as a teacher. We were “forced” by the ED to give students a “50” in the name of equity. Forced to give them a 50 after they slept the first 8-weeks of class. Forced to give them a 50 after they assaulted a teacher and were suspended over and over again. Forced to give them a 50 after being cussed at daily. The students, who are smart enough to game the system, would then roll a 70 and pass. As a person pushing “free expression”, why can’t people like yourself allow teachers to “freely express” the actual grade a child earns versus their unearned 50. This is what we want for our children? I am all for “equal outcomes”, but it’s the means to get there that counts. Quality education, student accountability (school/parent), student participation, etc. is what counts…not making excuses for students who don’t participate. For starters, quit pushing kids through the school system for metrics and hold them back until they can successfully grasp the concepts presented in their respective grade.
7. What teachers want – A school system that:
A. Supports them by holding students accountable…there is way too much bad behavior in the classroom. Teachers can only take so much mental and physical abuse.
B. Provides resources based on what teachers need versus what the ED forces on them. Teachers are forced to use new apps, sites, etc. faster than they can learn the last ones.
C. Compensates them fairly. Knowing what teachers put up with, they should be making at least $10K more per year in NC. Reduce the size of the ED and give the teachers the difference.
D. Is less concerned about “feelings” of students and more concerned about performance. Teachers are not mental health counselors, mental health counselors are.
E. Puts kids in classes that are based on their abilities. These days, in the name of equity, kids with IEPs and 504 plans are thrown into classes they shouldn’t be in and the teachers are expected to write 8 lesson plans for those individuals and there simply isn’t enough time in the day.
Lastly, although the phrase “separation of Church and State” was once found in the now-defunct Soviet Union’s constitution, it is not in the U.S. Constitution. The phrase originated in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association (DBA) in Connecticut. The reason…previously, the DBA wrote Mr. Jefferson concerned that the U.S. Government could someday ban religious freedom. This misinformation is another reason why we need more objective, challenging history classes.
This reply is not meant to be ill-spirited…just adding to the conversation. Have a good day sir.
Dear Former Teacher,
1. Personal Freedoms and Free Will:
You emphasize that Christians believe in “free will,” allowing individuals to make their own choices, whether good or bad, and that while Christians may not agree with certain choices, they respect others’ free will and pray for them. This aligns with the Christian doctrine of free will, which acknowledges that individuals have the capacity to choose their actions. However, it’s important to recognize that interpretations of free will and its implications can vary among Christians. Some may advocate for certain moral standards in public policy, which can be perceived as limiting personal freedoms. The challenge lies in balancing respect for individual choices with the desire to promote particular moral values within a diverse society.
2. Limiting Personal Expression:
You mention that while Christians prefer modesty and avoiding actions that bring shame to God, they understand that people have “free will” to express themselves within the confines of public law. This suggests a recognition of individual rights to personal expression. However, debates often arise when personal expressions conflict with certain religious beliefs, leading to discussions about the extent to which personal expression should be limited in public spaces. It’s crucial to navigate these situations carefully to ensure that neither personal freedoms nor religious beliefs are unjustly infringed upon.
3. Christian Studies Classes:
You propose that including Christian Studies or any religious studies in school curricula could help students understand diverse beliefs and foster empathy. While religious literacy is valuable, it’s essential that such education is presented objectively and inclusively, covering a range of religious and non-religious perspectives. This approach ensures that public education remains neutral and respects the separation of church and state, thereby accommodating the diverse beliefs of all students.
4. Christian Nationalism:
You assert that “Christian Nationalism” is a term created by the media and that Christians focus on building the Kingdom of Heaven rather than establishing a Christian nation in America. It’s true that the term “Christian Nationalism” has been used in various contexts, sometimes pejoratively. However, it’s also important to acknowledge that there are groups and individuals who advocate for policies aligning closely with specific Christian doctrines, which raises concerns about maintaining the secular nature of government institutions. Recognizing this distinction is vital in discussions about religion’s role in public life.
5. The Department of Education (ED):
You express concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Education, suggesting that increased spending has not led to improved performance internationally. Critically evaluating and reforming educational institutions to better serve students is indeed important. However, it’s also crucial to consider the complexities involved, such as socioeconomic factors, resource allocation, and varying educational needs across different communities, when proposing changes to the education system.
6. Equity:
You share experiences of being “forced” to give students a minimum grade of 50 in the name of equity, even when they did not participate or exhibited disruptive behavior. While the intention behind such policies may be to prevent students from becoming discouraged, it’s essential to balance this with accountability and the promotion of genuine learning. Policies should aim to support all students in achieving their potential without compromising academic standards or fairness.
7. What Teachers Want:
You outline several desires for the education system, including holding students accountable, providing necessary resources, fair compensation, focusing on performance over feelings, and placing students in classes based on abilities. These are valid concerns that many educators share. Addressing them requires collaborative efforts among educators, policymakers, parents, and communities to create an environment conducive to effective teaching and learning.
Separation of Church and State:
You note that the phrase “separation of Church and State” is not in the U.S. Constitution but originated from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. While the exact phrase isn’t in the Constitution, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that government should not establish or favor any religion, effectively creating a “wall of separation” between church and state. This interpretation aims to protect religious freedom for all by preventing government endorsement or support of religious activities.
Thank you for contributing to this important conversation. Engaging in respectful dialogue allows us to better understand diverse perspectives and work towards common goals.
I love defeating Chat GPT in a debate. Former Teacher 1, Chat GPT 0.
If you have more districts you have more superintendants, administrators etc..in the district office. The reason why the students have no money spent on them. Look at JOCO all the huge salaries are people at the district office, some barely doing anything. If you want to get rid of all the unneccessary administrative costs then keep the districs under one command. Why do you think Trump wants to cut out the DOE? All that money those people are sucking away from the state could now go straight to the state and hopefully trickle down to the teachers and students. I think Bracey should ask the folks at the county office to name 5 things they did today…LOL seriously though look at all the central office people on the payroll….Give the money to the teachers!
So let me get this straight—breaking up large school districts in North Carolina is being framed as an effort to improve education, but in reality, it seems more like a way to politicize and control public schools. The timing, the structure of the proposed commission, and the broader push to eliminate the federal Department of Education all point to an ideological agenda rather than a genuine attempt at reform.
Smaller, fragmented districts are easier to control, especially when the goal is to push a Christian nationalist curriculum that restricts personal freedoms, limits diverse perspectives, and prioritizes religious doctrine over real education. This isn’t speculation—it’s a pattern we’ve seen across the country, where certain lawmakers chip away at public education to replace it with something more aligned with their political and religious beliefs.
Of course, breaking up districts would also increase costs, weaken educational resources, and disproportionately harm lower-income communities—but maybe that’s the intent. A fractured system is easier to manipulate. If this plan moves forward, it will almost certainly lead to legal challenges, given the blatant constitutional concerns regarding the separation of church and state.
Silencing opposing views won’t change the facts. If the goal is really about improving education, then let’s see an open, transparent discussion about what this plan actually accomplishes—rather than pretending there’s no dissent.
Christian nationalist…blah blah blah….imagine a curriculum that says don’t steal, don’t murder, love your neighbor, be humble, don’t be jealous and envious, don’t commit adultery, don’t be a slave to the banking system, seek knowledge, seek wisdom, be a servant leader, forgive others, be optimistic, be resilient, have hope, etc. etc. Man, that sounds terrible doesn’t it Mr. Johnston. If you could get rid of Christianity, you could live by your own moral standard with no accountability. You could hate your neighbor, love yourself more than others, be jealous and envious of others, commit adultery, be a slave to the banks, waste countless hours on dumb things, be a self-serving leader, hold grudges, and be defeated…man, that sounds like present day society. Mr. Johnson, I think those pesky Christians are the least of your worries…jus’ sayin’.
Your argument presents a false dichotomy, implying that without Christianity, society would collapse into moral chaos. However, morality is not exclusive to Christianity. Ethical principles like honesty, kindness, humility, and justice exist across various religious and secular philosophies. Societies worldwide, including those with diverse religious beliefs or secular foundations, uphold values like not stealing, not murdering, and treating others with respect.
Furthermore, the issue with Christian nationalism in education isn’t about whether values like integrity or wisdom are good—it’s about whether the government should be imposing religious doctrine in public schools. The U.S. Constitution explicitly separates church and state to ensure that no single religious ideology dictates public policy or education. Teaching values like kindness and honesty is beneficial, but framing them through a religious lens in taxpayer-funded institutions infringes upon the rights of those who hold different beliefs.
The idea that removing Christianity from the public sphere results in a morally bankrupt society ignores historical and present-day realities. Secular nations like Sweden, Japan, and Canada have strong social cohesion, low crime rates, and high levels of well-being without state-mandated religious influence. Meanwhile, some of history’s greatest injustices—colonialism, slavery, and segregation—were often justified using Christian doctrine.
People can and do live moral, ethical lives without adhering to Christianity. The pushback against Christian nationalism is not about opposing good values; it’s about maintaining religious freedom for all, ensuring that no single faith dictates government policy, and respecting the diverse beliefs that make up a democratic society.
You missed the point…your fear of Christian beliefs are concerning. How do you feel about the teachings of Islam? Fun fact…as of 2023, Muhammad is the top baby name for boys in England.
Dear Jus’ Sayin’,
I fear no religion. What I do fear is theocratic rule—whether it comes from Christian nationalists, Islamic fundamentalists, or any other group that seeks to impose religious doctrine on government and public life. The issue isn’t Christianity itself, but Christian nationalism, which pushes for a system where religious beliefs dictate laws and policies, undermining the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
As for Islam, the same principle applies. I don’t fear the beliefs of Muslims any more than I fear the beliefs of Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists. What I oppose is any religious group—Christian, Muslim, or otherwise—trying to force their doctrine into government at the expense of others. In the U.S., the separation of church and state exists to prevent exactly that.
And your “fun fact” about baby names in England? That has nothing to do with this discussion. A popular name doesn’t indicate a religious takeover—it’s a cultural shift, just like names and demographics have evolved throughout history. The real concern is not what religion people practice, but whether they seek to control others through it.
“We’ve got reinvent education in North Carolina,” Lambeth said.
Ummmm we might want to form a commission on who taught this guy proper grammar. Sheeesh. Hopefully it’s a typo, in which case they need a commission on who trained this proofreader.
Chris, You are very articulate. Very well spoken and make a good argument. I agree they should not break up the large districts. I would argue against funding at the local level would decrease with the DOE disbanned. I believe it would INCREASE. It really just comes down to putting money in the school house for the Teachers and students. Too much administrative costs when you break up large districts. If you fear they will lack buying power or other Entitlements for the disadvantaged then have those smaller districts absorbed by the larger ones. The concept is to reduce the cost of doing business by cutting out the fluff. The same thing they want to do with the Department of Education, since its inception, our test scores and educational effectiveness has declined.
The U.S. Department of Education receives $280 Billion taxpayer dollars per year. Less than 25% of that enormous sum goes directly toward educating America’s children. The other $220 Billion goes to programs that fund DOZENS of NGOs (Non-governmental Organizations) who launder it to hundreds of private contract providers, who pay enormous salaries with it and donate much of it to liberal Political Action Committees (PACs) who fund far left congressional campaigns with it.
Take the 280 billion divide it by 50 states, (Based on student population). Give it directly to the school boards, based on district size and it will be much better spent even if it all goes to teacher pay.
Save us,
Disbanding the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) could have significant financial implications for North Carolina’s public education system. In the 2021-2022 fiscal year, federal funding constituted approximately 20% of the state’s public school revenue, amounting to $3.9 billion. These funds support essential programs for at-risk and disabled students.
Without federal funds, North Carolina would face a substantial budget shortfall in its education sector. To maintain current funding levels, the state might need to increase taxes or reallocate funds from other areas, potentially impacting various public services.
No one is taking away federal
Funding from the schools, they just want to reduce the top heavy DOE and give the money directly to the states to distribute. This is a good thing as it will be more money for the schools themselves instead of all the bureaucrats.
It’s time to do away with the entire notion of public education. Trump is on the right track abolishing the Dept of Educatuon. We can only hope and pray that the NC Grn Assembly follows suit and offers up a constitutional amendment this fall to abolish Aricle IX of the state constitution. It’s time to return the rile of overseeing children’s education to THEIR PARENTS. Stop trying to bandaid a broken system! #MAGA
In North Carolina, amending the state constitution requires a three-fifths majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Presently, the House is one vote short of this threshold. An amendment must first be approved by the General Assembly before being placed on a statewide ballot, where it becomes law only if a majority of voters approve it. Notably, the Governor does not have veto power over constitutional amendments, meaning the process bypasses the executive branch entirely.
While Republicans hold a supermajority in the North Carolina Senate, they are one seat short in the House, meaning bipartisan support is necessary to meet the three-fifths requirement for proposing constitutional amendments. Any such amendment must ultimately be approved by the state’s voters, ensuring that major changes reflect the will of the people.
@Chris: I am quite aware of how the process works. I am confident that there is at least one Dem who will switch parties this year (like Cotham did). Then look for the amendment on the fall ballot. Off-year elections are the best way to get major changes. @MAGA
While it’s possible that a Democratic legislator may switch parties, enabling certain legislative actions, we must consider the broader implications. Under President Trump’s administration, we’ve witnessed actions that have strained our democratic principles and international standing. His administration has challenged constitutional norms, asserting expansive executive powers and undermining the checks and balances integral to our democracy. Trump’s approach to foreign policy has weakened longstanding alliances, causing allies to question America’s commitment to mutual defense and cooperation. Domestically, his administration has implemented significant job cuts within the Department of Veterans Affairs, potentially jeopardizing healthcare services for millions of veterans. Additionally, his attacks on journalists and media organizations threaten the foundational principle of a free press essential for a functioning democracy. Reflect on the kind of country we aspire to be. Our nation was built on principles of liberty, equality, and justice for all, not on exclusionary ideologies. True patriotism lies in upholding these ideals, ensuring that our democracy remains robust and inclusive for future generations. As someone who served in the military to protect our freedoms, I am deeply concerned about any shift towards authoritarianism. If you support ideologies that contradict these foundational principles, it’s essential to recognize that such beliefs are incompatible with the very essence of our Constitution. Embracing exclusionary or authoritarian views undermines the democratic values we cherish and have fought to preserve. We must remain vigilant against any threats to our way of life, remembering that loyalty to our nation’s ideals transcends allegiance to any individual. Our commitment should be to the enduring principles that define America, not to those who seek to erode them.
Everything you just spewed is exactly what the last administration did. Biden used his auto pen signature to implement many executive orders, imprisoned and prosecuted Christians for standing up for their beliefs, kept the independent media out of the press room, legacy media and social media lied and were paid by the Biden administration to censor users to promote their own agenda, Biden pushed disturbing sex based agendas into the classroom while telling everyone there are multiple genders while also not being able to tell anyone what a woman or man is. The last administration started wars, made this country less safe and reduced our war readiness all while shipping money overseas to corrupt governments who are now saying they never got the money-my money, your money and the money of every tax payer is now missing! All this while allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry into this country.
The current administration is trying to bring sanity back to the US and right a sinking ship.
Jen, Chris wants us to live in the Socialist Republic of America…not the free United States of America. That’s why he does not like Christians. He wants the government to be your god, not God.
Dear Yup,
That’s not true, some of my best friends are Christian. As for me choosing a god for you, that’s just nonsense! You are free to worship any god you choose. That’s none of my business. It is my business when any religion encroaches on our secular form of government or public schools.
Do you call them Christian Nationalists too? Ridicule is a symptom of the defeated. Maybe you should get to know them more…you might find they are not the bad people you think they are.
Dear Yup,
Labeling individuals or groups accurately is not ridicule; it is a way to describe ideologies based on their beliefs and actions. Christian nationalism is not simply about being Christian—it refers to the belief that the U.S. government should be explicitly Christian and that laws should be based on a specific interpretation of Christianity. This goes beyond personal faith and into the realm of imposing religious doctrine on others, which conflicts with the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom.
Criticism of Christian nationalism is not an attack on Christians as a whole. Many Christians reject Christian nationalism because they recognize the dangers of mixing religion with government. Figures like former President Jimmy Carter, theologian Russell Moore, and countless pastors and religious leaders have spoken against it, arguing that it distorts both democracy and Christianity.
As for ridicule being a “symptom of the defeated,” history shows that calling out dangerous ideologies is necessary for protecting democratic values. Opposition to Christian nationalism is not about defeating individuals but about ensuring that no one religious ideology controls government policy. The pushback isn’t against Christianity—it’s against efforts to enforce religious rule over a diverse population.
Getting to know individuals on a personal level is always valuable, but that does not mean ignoring or excusing the political agenda of Christian nationalism, which seeks to undermine pluralism, limit the rights of others, and reshape America’s institutions around a narrow religious viewpoint. Recognizing this distinction is key to having an honest conversation about faith, governance, and the future of democracy.
Chris, I appreciate the book report, but President Trump is for downsizing the government. That doesn’t sound very authoritarian. An authoritarian, socialist, or communist would want MORE government. The whole idea of “freedom” means free from government control and free of government dependency. The government doesn’t produce anything, but only consumes billions of tax-payer revenue. You need to open your eyes bud.
Jus’ Sayin’,
Here’s another book report. I apologize for it being long and I hope you read it.
The United States operates under a mixed economic system that integrates both capitalist and socialist elements.
At some point in your life you or a loved one will need and rely on some of these services, unless you are rich.
Several federal programs exemplify how government initiatives can enhance individual freedom by addressing basic needs and promoting economic stability:
• Social Security: Established in 1935, Social Security provides financial assistance to retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors, ensuring economic security for millions. 
• Medicare and Medicaid: These programs offer health coverage to the elderly, low-income individuals, and people with disabilities, ensuring access to necessary medical services.
• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): SNAP provides food-purchasing assistance to low-income individuals and families, aiming to alleviate hunger and improve nutrition. 
• Public Education: The government funds public schools to provide free education to all children, promoting literacy and equal opportunity.
• Unemployment Insurance: This program offers temporary financial assistance to workers who have lost their jobs, helping them meet basic needs while seeking new employment.
• Housing Assistance: Programs like Section 8 provide rental assistance to low-income families, ensuring access to safe and affordable housing. 
• Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP): CHIP offers low-cost health coverage to children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance.
• Lifeline Program: Since 1985, the Lifeline program has provided subsidies to low-income individuals to help pay for phone and internet services, ensuring connectivity and access to emergency services. 
I believe all citizens desire prudent management of their taxes and recognize the importance of essential federal agencies that provide critical services. In addition to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), other vital agencies include:
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Monitors public health and responds to health emergencies.
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Enforces regulations to protect the environment and public health.
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Ensures the safety of food, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices.
• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Regulates civil aviation to promote safety.
• National Institutes of Health (NIH): Conducts medical research to advance health.
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Protects the nation from various threats and manages border security.
In addition to agencies like NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) plays a crucial role in safeguarding consumers in the financial sector. Established in 2011 under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB is responsible for overseeing financial institutions to ensure fair practices and protect consumers from abusive financial services.
At this time I won’t be getting into why I and half of America believe Trump is a Putin wannabe. I will say this; America has no right to annex Canada, Gaza or Greenland. Supporting Ukraine is vital for protecting democracy around the world. Otherwise, Putin will keep taking European countries. This must not happen.
I am a veteran…I have seen no interruption to my healthcare or benefits.
The Truth Police,
Not yet you haven’t..but you will.
To Jen R.,
Wow, so many claims with little specificity. I’ve done my best to read between the lines. Let me know if I missed anything.
It’s important to note that the use of autopen for signing documents is not unprecedented; previous presidents, including Barack Obama and Donald Trump, have employed this method for efficiency. The legality of using an autopen for such purposes has been upheld in the past.
There is no substantial evidence to suggest that Democratic administrations have systematically imprisoned or prosecuted individuals solely for practicing Christianity. The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and any legal actions involving individuals identifying as Christian have typically been based on violations of specific laws, not their religious beliefs. For instance, during President Biden’s administration, there were instances where individuals, including some Christians, faced legal action for activities such as protesting outside abortion clinics. These prosecutions were based on violations of laws like the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, rather than on religious beliefs per se.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration expressed concerns about the spread of misinformation on social media platforms. Officials from the administration communicated with companies like Facebook (now Meta) to encourage the moderation of content deemed false or misleading. In 2021, President Biden remarked that platforms allowing vaccine misinformation were “killing people,” highlighting the administration’s stance on the issue. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a lawsuit alleging that the administration’s communications with social media companies amounted to coercion, infringing upon free speech rights. In June 2024, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing, as they could not demonstrate a direct link between the administration’s actions and any specific harm suffered.
The claim that President Biden promoted “disturbing sex-based agendas” in classrooms and was unable to define “what a woman or man is” requires clarification. The Biden administration implemented policies to enhance protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, including expanding Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. However, these changes faced legal challenges, and in January 2025, a federal judge blocked the expanded protections, ruling they exceeded presidential authority. Regarding definitions of gender, there is no evidence that President Biden has been unable to define “woman” or “man.” The administration’s focus has been on promoting inclusivity and preventing discrimination against all gender identities. Biological sex typically refers to physical attributes such as chromosomes, hormone levels, and reproductive anatomy, generally categorized as male or female. However, gender identity pertains to one’s internal understanding and experience of their own gender, which may or may not align with their biological sex. This distinction is widely recognized in contemporary academic literature and by organizations like the World Health Organization. How individuals identify themselves is deeply personal and can be influenced by various factors, including their experiences and challenges. Respecting each person’s self-identification is fundamental to acknowledging their humanity and dignity. Transgender individuals, in particular, often face significant discrimination and adversity, making empathy and understanding crucial. In summary, while biological sex and gender identity are distinct concepts, respecting how individuals identify themselves is essential, especially considering the unique struggles they may face.
Matthew 25:40, Jesus says: Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”
During President Biden’s tenure, the U.S. conducted military operations, notably in Yemen. In January 2024, the U.S. and the U.K. launched airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen following attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea. These actions aimed to degrade the Houthis’ capabilities to threaten international shipping lanes. While these operations marked significant military engagements, they were limited in scope and did not escalate into full-scale wars.
Claims that the previous administration made the country less safe and reduced military readiness are not substantiated by any available evidence. The administration maintained a focus on strengthening alliances and ensuring military preparedness. Specific metrics or incidents indicating a decline in national safety or military readiness during this period are unfounded..
The assertion that taxpayer money was sent to corrupt governments, resulting in missing funds, lacks concrete evidence. While foreign aid is subject to scrutiny, there is no verified information indicating that funds allocated during the previous administration were unaccounted for or misused.
In summary, while the previous administration engaged in targeted military operations, there is no evidence to support claims that it initiated new wars, compromised national safety, reduced military readiness, or misallocated taxpayer funds.
I don’t agree with you about what you think Trump is doing. We save that argument/debate for another time.
Genesis 1:27 (NIV), “27 So God created mankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.” If you need more proof, turn to the facts of human anatomy. It ain’t rocket science bro.
In reference to Matthew 25:40, a part of helping your neighbor is being honest with them…like when they think they are a cat, you take them to get help…you don’t give them a litter box.
Dear PB&J,
You’re cherry-picking scripture to justify dismissing and demeaning people rather than actually following the teachings of Christ. Matthew 25:40 is about compassion—not about ridiculing people who are different from you. If you’re going to use the Bible to argue against transgender identities, at least be consistent. Genesis 1:27 says God created “male and female,” but the Bible also acknowledges people who don’t fit neatly into binary categories. Jesus himself spoke of eunuchs (Matthew 19:12), a term that historically included people who didn’t conform to typical male or female roles. The reality is that gender—how people understand and express themselves—is not limited to a biological checklist, and science backs that up.
And let’s be clear—comparing transgender people to someone thinking they’re a cat is nothing but a weak attempt at mockery. Transgender identities are recognized by every major medical and psychological association, backed by decades of research on gender dysphoria and human development. Reducing it to “it ain’t rocket science, bro” just exposes an unwillingness to engage with facts. If you truly cared about honesty and compassion, you’d take the time to listen, learn, and actually help people instead of ridiculing them.
Chris, The Holy Bible does not mention “binary categories”…not one time. In reference to Eunuchs, their condition was related to their reproductive system not their gender identity. In other words, physical not mental or feelings. I pray anyone with a mental illness gets the help they need, but it is very important they are properly diagnosed. Sadly, social media has sensationalized these theories and there is a lot of personal testimony out there to suggest the “science” is wrong and the effects are irreversible. And that is very sad.
Your argument relies on selective interpretation and dismisses established medical and psychological research. The Bible doesn’t use the term “binary categories” explicitly, just as it doesn’t mention electricity, democracy, or the internet—but that doesn’t mean those things don’t exist or aren’t real. The Bible was written in a historical context where gender roles were understood differently, and the reality is that many cultures, including those from biblical times, recognized people who didn’t fit strict male-female roles.
Regarding eunuchs, Jesus himself acknowledged that some were born that way, some were made that way by others, and some chose it for spiritual reasons (Matthew 19:12). This directly challenges the rigid idea that everyone must fit into two simple biological categories. You argue that their condition was purely physical, but you ignore that the Bible itself distinguishes between different types of eunuchs—including those who did not conform to standard gender roles in society.
As for your claim about mental illness, transgender identities are not classified as a mental disorder by any major medical or psychological association. The American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, and World Health Organization all recognize gender dysphoria as a legitimate condition, not a delusion or mental illness. The recommended treatment for those struggling with gender dysphoria is gender-affirming care, which has been shown to improve mental health outcomes significantly.
Your social media argument is misleading. If personal testimonies were enough to disprove science, we’d still believe the Earth is flat because some people claim to “experience” it that way. The reality is that decades of medical research support transgender healthcare, and the overwhelming majority of trans people do not regret transitioning. Yes, some individuals detransition, but studies show they are a small fraction, and most do so due to social pressure, discrimination, or lack of access to proper care—not because they were misdiagnosed.
If you’re truly concerned about irreversible effects, you should also be worried about forcing trans people to live as someone they are not, which leads to much higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. The actual tragedy isn’t that gender-affirming care exists—it’s that people like you dismiss real medical science in favor of fear-based rhetoric.
Let me ask you a question. Do you practice your faith only on Sundays?
According to your biblical teachings, what days are you allowed to denigrate others whom you deem inferior or unworthy of respect?
What would Jesus or God say about your actions or words you just spoke. Would he be pleased?
Before you spoke did you think about what Jesus might say were he in your shoes? Would he be saying the same things.
How Do you teach your children about Christ….is it more of a “do as I say, not what I do”, because that always works out.
You need to practice and live your faith!
The Bible provides clear guidance on how we should interact with strangers and those different from ourselves, emphasizing love, empathy, and hospitality: Jesus highlighted the importance of loving others as a fundamental commandment: Mark 12:30-31:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”