Aggregator

‘National emergency’: Trump cancels bill signing until SAVE America Act passes

2 weeks ago


President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he would delay the signing ceremony for a major bill until lawmakers pass the SAVE America Act.

Just over an hour before he was scheduled to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he would not sign the legislation on Wednesday. The bill aims to increase the nation’s housing supply and boost affordability by expanding available financing and providing grants for community developments.

'It has been stuck in the Senate, and here’s why: because no Democrat in the House or Senate will vote for the SAVE America Act.'

The housing act passed the Senate by an 85-5 vote on Monday and the House in a 358-32 vote on Tuesday. The bill had complete Democratic support from those who voted, and the only dissenting votes were from Republicans.

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

The SAVE America Act aims to end noncitizen voting by requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in a federal election. The form of identification must comply with the REAL ID Act of 2005, such as a U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other government-issued photo ID.

RELATED: Trump takes action to secure elections against voter fraud — Democrats already plan to shut it down

Brendan SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) stated Wednesday that the top priority is passing the SAVE America Act, which he plans to push through a third budget reconciliation bill.

“It has been stuck in the Senate, and here’s why: because no Democrat in the House or Senate will vote for the SAVE America Act,” Johnson stated during a press briefing.

RELATED: America desperately needs better election security

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Johnson stated that “the only path” to get the act passed is to “put it on a reconciliation bill."

“We believe that if you create a grant program that ties it to reconciling the budget, and you allow blue states, if they come to their senses and they want to avail themselves of election integrity proposals and ideas and policies, they can draw down from a federal fund and use those funds. We’re willing to invest heavily in that, and House Republicans will put together a reconciliation bill, reconciliation 3.0, that will have that,” Johnson said. “I talked the president through that in detail this morning, as I have in the past, and he said, ‘Can we do it?’ I said, ‘We can, if the Republicans will stand together.’ We’re on the line right now to defend it.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Candace Hathaway

The latest 'solution' to reckless driving could limit freedom for all of us

2 weeks ago


If a driver is so dangerous that the government needs to electronically control his car, why is he still allowed to drive?

That's the question New York lawmakers don't seem interested in answering.

Today the threshold is 16 violations. Tomorrow it could be 10.

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) recently signed legislation requiring certain repeat speeding offenders to install GPS-based speed-limiting technology in their vehicles. Under the new law, drivers who rack up 16 or more speed-camera violations within a year can be ordered to install an Intelligent Speed Limiter that prevents their vehicle from exceeding posted speed limits. Drivers who refuse can ultimately lose their vehicle registration.

Reckless legislation

At first glance, the proposal sounds reasonable. Most Americans agree that chronic reckless drivers should face serious consequences. But the real question is not whether dangerous drivers deserve punishment. The real question is why someone with 16 speeding violations still has driving privileges in the first place.

New York already has speeding laws. It already has fines, insurance penalties, license points, court appearances, and suspension mechanisms. If a driver has accumulated enough violations to be considered such a serious threat that the state now wants to electronically control their vehicle, then why weren't existing laws sufficient to remove that driver from the road?

That question goes directly to the heart of the issue. Rather than addressing the apparent failure of existing enforcement systems, lawmakers have chosen to create an entirely new layer of technology, surveillance, and government oversight. Instead of asking why repeat offenders remain licensed, they're asking the public to accept the idea that government should have a greater role in controlling privately owned vehicles.

That's a significant shift, and it deserves far more scrutiny than it has received.

Pre-crime preview

The legislation relies on Intelligent Speed Assistance technology, commonly referred to as ISA. The system uses GPS data and digital mapping to determine the posted speed limit on a roadway and can prevent a vehicle from exceeding that speed. Unlike traditional enforcement, where a driver is punished after breaking the law, this technology is designed to intervene before the driver can make the decision.

The automotive industry is already moving toward an unprecedented level of connectivity. Modern vehicles collect enormous amounts of information. They receive over-the-air software updates, communicate with manufacturers, monitor driving behavior, and increasingly operate as rolling computers. Consumers have already watched vehicle ownership evolve into something that looks increasingly like a subscription service, with features activated remotely and software determining how products function.

Now government is entering the equation with technology designed to control how a vehicle operates.

That should concern anyone who values personal privacy and consumer rights.

Starting small

Supporters insist the law applies only to a small group of repeat offenders. That's true today. The problem is that government programs rarely remain confined to their original scope. Nearly every major regulatory program begins with a narrowly defined target. Politicians identify a group that few people are willing to defend, implement a new policy, and assure the public that the measure will be limited. Once the infrastructure exists, however, expanding it becomes significantly easier than creating it.

Today the threshold is 16 violations. Tomorrow it could be 10. Later it could be expanded to fleet vehicles, commercial operators, or other categories of drivers. Once the principle is accepted, the debate shifts from whether government should have this authority to how broadly it should be applied.

Imperfect technology

The practical questions surrounding this law are equally troubling. GPS technology is useful, but it is not infallible. Speed-limit databases are not always current. Construction zones change. Temporary restrictions appear. Road conditions evolve faster than mapping systems can update.

What happens when the speed-limit database is wrong? What happens when a roadway has recently changed and the system hasn't been updated? What happens when a driver needs rapid acceleration to avoid an accident?

These are not hypothetical concerns. They are the types of real-world situations automotive engineers consider every day. Yet lawmakers frequently discuss speed-limiting technology as though vehicles operate in a controlled environment where every situation can be anticipated by software. The reality is far more complicated.

RELATED: Gone in 60 seconds: How high-tech thieves can steal your car

Jeff Greenberg/Getty Images

Punishing cars, not drivers

Then there is the issue of fairness.

One of the most overlooked aspects of this legislation is its reliance on camera enforcement. Traditional traffic stops identify the driver. Automated camera systems identify the vehicle. Those are not the same thing. Families share cars. Businesses operate fleets. Vehicles are borrowed, rented, and loaned every day. Yet policymakers continue to build enforcement systems around the vehicle itself rather than the individual behind the wheel.

That distinction matters because accountability should be directed at the person responsible for the behavior, not simply the machine involved.

There is also a financial component that deserves attention. Installation costs for these systems can run into the thousands of dollars, with additional fees for monitoring, maintenance, administration, and compliance. Government officials often frame these costs as penalties for offenders, but every new regulatory program creates opportunities for vendors, contractors, software providers, installers, and administrators.

Whenever government mandates a new technology, there is almost always an industry waiting to benefit from it.

New York is hardly alone in pursuing this approach. Washington State has adopted its own Intelligent Speed Assistance requirements for certain offenders. Virginia and Washington, D.C., have moved in a similar direction, while Illinois lawmakers have advanced proposals involving mandatory speed-limiting technology. What once appeared to be an isolated experiment is rapidly becoming a national trend.

As more states adopt similar programs, lawmakers should answer a basic question: Why create a technological workaround instead of enforcing the penalties already available under existing law?

Accountability ... or control?

The answer may be uncomfortable. Suspending licenses removes the driver from the system. Technological monitoring keeps the driver in the system while creating new layers of oversight and control. One approach focuses on accountability. The other focuses on management.

Those are fundamentally different philosophies.

New York's "super speeder" law is being sold as a narrowly targeted safety measure. Maybe that's how it begins. The larger concern is where it ends. Once government gains the authority to electronically regulate how privately owned vehicles operate, future expansions become much easier to justify.

The most important question isn't whether a driver with 16 violations deserves punishment. It's whether Americans are comfortable creating the technological infrastructure that allows government to control how a privately owned vehicle operates.

Today, lawmakers call it a solution for super speeders. Tomorrow, it could become something much broader.

Lauren Fix

Exclusive — Senate Republicans Ask Trump Admin to Update Design for Global War on Terror Memorial

2 weeks ago

Senate Republicans on Monday urged President Donald Trump to redesign the proposed Global War on Terror Memorial, believing that the current proposal falls "far short" of our "obligation" to those who made the "ultimate sacrifice" in service to America.

The post Exclusive — Senate Republicans Ask Trump Admin to Update Design for Global War on Terror Memorial appeared first on Breitbart.

Sean Moran

Georgia's questionable election system is here to stay for the midterms

2 weeks ago


As an important deadline approaches for Georgia to fix problems with its election system, a special legislative session has come to a close. Yet the solution the legislature came to has left a potential flaw on the table for the upcoming midterms.

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp called a special session last week to resolve a looming issue with the state's election system, which currently uses QR codes to tabulate election results.

The QR code system was first implemented statewide in the 2020 election.

According to the Georgia Recorder, a state law passed in 2024 banned the use of QR codes. The ban was set to take effect on July 1, resulting in an impending crisis for the 2026 midterms absent a solution this month.

The QR code system was first implemented statewide in the 2020 election, according to WSPA.

RELATED: 'Hammer Down!' Trump-backed favorite wins Georgia Republican Senate runoff

Georgia Governor Brian KempDerek White/Getty Images for the Coca Cola Company

With just a week before the deadline, the special legislative session concluded with the successful passage of Senate Bill 3EX, which, among other things, postpones the looming deadline to find a replacement system until after the 2026 midterms.

The new bill, if Gov. Kemp signs it, will establish a new Elections Equipment Specifications and Standards Committee charged with forming and implementing a system to replace the current system. However, the QR code system will remain in place.

Blaze News reached out to Kemp's office for comment.

This bill, which Republican state Rep. Victor Anderson told the Associated Press was "the culmination of a lot of work," is nonetheless "not the ultimate solution."

“This bill solves an immediate conflict we have and lays out a path to achieve the most election integrity, the most accuracy, the most transparency that we can have going forward when we implement the next uniform voting system in Georgia," he said.

Republicans and Democrats fought over the extent to which hand-counting ballots could be used in the future. Democrats often oppose hand-counts, citing the extended waiting periods and extra costs.

“The question before us is not whether we support election integrity. Of course we do,” Democratic state Rep. Debra Bazemore told the AP. “The question is whether the bill actually improves election integrity or whether it creates a new opportunity to cast doubt on legitimate election results. I believe it does the latter.”

CBS News reported that the Georgia Senate passed the state House-amended bill after a failed attempt at passing additional amendments in the upper chamber.

The House passed the bill 94-79. The Senate eventually passed the bill 36-16.

The committee would be required to present its findings by January 31, 2027. The new deadline for ending the current system would be January 1, 2028.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Cooper Williamson

Mormon parents fight woke school district over alleged LGBTQ propaganda in California despite SCOTUS ruling

2 weeks ago


A Mormon couple seeking to protect their children from radical gender ideology were allegedly notified by Sunnyvale School District in Santa Clara County that LGBTQ instruction was "not optional and is not subject to parent opt-out provisions."

The district allegedly gave this notice after — and apparently with full knowledge of — the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the high court held that a Maryland school district's policy of withholding from parents notice of LGBT propaganda sessions and forbidding opt-outs constituted "an unconstitutional burden" on the parents' religious exercise.

'The school boards will continue to defy the SCOTUS ruling, gaslight, lie, and deflect.'

The district also allegedly denied the Mormon parents an opt-out after the California Department of Education acknowledged in its August 2025 guidance that the "fundamental holding" in Mahmoud was that schools must provide parents with the opportunity to opt their children out of policies or exposure to material that schools have "reason to know will 'substantially interfere'" with parents' religious rights.

Unwilling to surrender their children's hearts and minds to the apparent LGBT propagandists at SSD's Cumberland Elementary School, Justin and Rose Taylor — represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm focused on protecting religious freedoms that won the Mahmoud case before SCOTUS — filed a lawsuit on Monday against the district in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Taylors — the proud parents of four children, including a rising third-grade son and a rising first-grade daughter at Cumberland Elementary School — said in a statement, "Our children are the most cherished part of our lives."

"We know and love them best and should be the ones deciding when and how they learn about sensitive topics regarding sexuality and gender," continued the parents. "Fortunately, the Supreme Court has recognized that right for religious parents nationwide."

RELATED: Critics blast Chicago mayor for pushing 'transfemicide' 'gibberish' amid deadly shootings

PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images

"California school districts have been putting LGBTQ propaganda in front of students for close to 20 years," Alvin Lui, president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, told Blaze News. "They're just now much more emboldened. I'm ecstatic to see these parents make an example out of the Sunnyvale School District."

The lawsuit claims that "Sunnyvale's denial violates parents' constitutional rights to direct the education and upbringing of their children in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs," and asks the court to:

  • enter a declaration that the SSD's alleged refusal to afford the parents a right to "opt out from LGBTQ+ instruction, including the forced reading of the District’s recommended LGBTQ+ storybooks, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment";
  • enter a declaration that forcing the Taylors to "educate their children, read,and/or speak consistently with the perspectives contained in the LGBTQ+ instruction, and compelling Plaintiffs’ children to accept one viewpoint to the exclusion of all others violates their rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment";
  • enter a declaration that "forcing students, over their parents’ objection, to read or listen to the LGBTQ+ instruction violates the Taylors’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment";
  • grant preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the school from forcing the kids to participate in the LGBT propaganda sessions; and
  • award the parents damages for loss of their rights under federal law.

The SSD did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

The lawsuit details some of the LGBT agitprop allegedly pushed by the SSD, noting that its curriculum "integrates LGBTQ+ history, representation, and examples throughout instructional units to show 'diverse backgrounds, identities, experiences, and abilities, including those who are lesbian, gay, genderqueer, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA).'"

This propaganda is apparently foisted upon students at all grade levels.

The "LGBTQ+ Teaching Guide" issued by the Santa Clara County Office of Education, which oversees Sunnyvale, discusses how to incorporate LGBT propaganda into virtually every subject.

Math teachers, for instance, are told in the guide to "use problems that relate to marriage equality, gender-neutral bathrooms, and LGBTQ+ rights to demonstrate mathematical concepts such as statistics, probability, and geometry."

Science and health teachers are told to champion "gender-inclusive biology" — in which, for example, "ovaries" are substituted in for "women" so as not to suggest a link between womanhood and female reproductive organs.

This guidance — which has been embraced by Sunnyvale — even quoted LGBTQ activist Barbara Gittings: "The struggle is really won in the hearts and minds of the community, where it really counts."

The Taylors' lawsuit highlights a number of the agitprop materials allegedly used by the SSD in its LGBT instruction including a book that changes the lyrics of "The Wheels on the Bus" to lyrics celebrating drag titled "The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish" and "Pride Puppy," a book that tasks 3- and 4-year-old students with searching for items they might find at a non-straight parade — including transvestite activists, underwear, leather, "intersex flag," and feathers.

The LGBT instruction under way in Sunnyvale is of the same type addressed in Mahmoud, claimed the lawsuit.

The Taylors' lawsuit alleges that while SSD initially appeared willing to permit opt-outs, "Sunnyvale abruptly flipped its position" and "affirmatively disclaimed its constitutional responsibility to afford families what the First Amendment requires."

Sunnyvale stated in a letter to the Taylors that it was "not granting opt-outs from LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum or storybooks that are part of our adopted educational program."

The district added in its letter that "the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor ... addressed a specific set of facts in another state" and neither created a "general or automatic right for parents to opt their children out of required curriculum" nor overrode "California's statutory requirements governing instructional content."

Becket said that "Sunnyvale’s defiance was no accident. After Mahmoud came down, Sunnyvale told its teachers to 'resist pressures' that might get in the way of its curriculum."

However, Michael O'brien, counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the Taylors, underscored that "the Constitution doesn't come with a California carve-out."

One of the defendants, SSD director of student support services Paul Slayton, said in a statement obtained by the Press Democrat, "The district was surprised to learn that the Taylor family had filed a lawsuit, particularly given the positive and productive discussions that took place following the family’s initial concerns."

"We will continue to approach this matter with professionalism and care," added Slayton.

"When the Mahmoud decision came out from the SCOTUS, like everyone in our space, we were very happy," Alvin Lui told Blaze News. "However, the first thing we did was warn parents that schools, and especially school counselors, will not honor that decision."

"The school boards will continue to defy the SCOTUS ruling, gaslight, lie, and deflect. They'll try to wear parents down so they can continue to put obscene LGBTQ materials in front of children as young as possible."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Joseph MacKinnon