BREAKING: Voter ID Bill Passes, Sparking New Political Debate.

A majority of House and Senate Republicans have been trying to pass legislation that 75-80 percent of the American people on both sides of the aisle want, but a year later, it still hasn’t reached President Trump’s desk.

Of course, we’re talking about the SAVE America Act, with its provisions for federal voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements as election-integrity upgrades.

On Wednesday, the House passed legislation to implement voter identification requirements ahead of the midterm elections by attaching the measure to a separate bill that would also restrict members of Congress from trading individual stocks.

But here’s the catch: The Voter ID Act, included as part of the Stop Insider Trading Act, faces long odds in the Senate, where it would require 60 votes to advance.

Nevertheless, the House approved the package largely along party lines on Wednesday, July 22, by a vote of 232-198.

The legislation, introduced in part in response to President Donald Trump’s call for Congress to adopt key provisions of the controversial SAVE America Act, may not become law.

Even so, it is expected to shape the midterm election debate by highlighting issues such as congressional ethics, stock trading, election integrity, and voter identification.

Again, according to recent polling, the vast majority of Americans want voter ID, making it extremely frustrating for them and the president over Congress’s inability to get it done.

Republicans have accused Democrats of opposing what they describe as common-sense election reforms that enjoy broad public support. Thirteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the bill.

Most Democrats, however, opposed the legislation. Critics, including Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., argued that Republicans used a legislative “trick” to advance provisions they said would significantly undermine mail-in voting, USA Today reported.

“Make no mistake; this is a trap,” Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, said on the House floor.

“This bill is to make it harder for eligible Americans to vote, and the Republican leadership is trying to trick us into supporting it by calling it a congressional stock trading ban,” he falsely claimed.

It is insanely easy to obtain an ID from any number of government entities, and in most cases, the ID is cost-free.

Republicans argued that a controversy that emerged this week in New Jersey underscored the need to pass the legislation.

The state’s governor attributed the mistaken addition of approximately 6,600 non-U.S. citizens to the voter rolls to a programming error at the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.

USA Today claimed that about 400 of those non-citizens voted, but it’s not clear where the outlet came up with that number.

USA Today also claimed that the addition of the 6,600 non-citizens was due to a “software error,” but the software company, France-based IDEMIA, has since denied those claims and laid the blame squarely on New Jersey officials.

“Voter ID ensures the sanctity of our elections and ensures confidence by the American people in our elections,” said Rep. Mike Lawler, R-New York.

“The American people should watch how every single member votes on this bill.”

The Stop Insider Trading Act, which was combined with the voter ID legislation, would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children from purchasing individual stocks while in office.

However, the bill would not require lawmakers to divest any stocks they already own. A separate bipartisan proposal, the Restore Trust in Congress Act, would go further by requiring members of Congress to sell their existing individual stock holdings.

Rep. Bryan Steil, a Republican from Wisconsin who introduced the recently passed bill, stated that opponents of the legislation presented conflicting arguments.

“Some the arguments made today are what I call the Goldilocks argument: The bill doesn’t do enough, or the bill does too much,” he said on the House floor.

Iran Fired Ballistic Missiles at American Forces — Trump’s Response Was Lit

“They’re going to get a beating.”

That’s what the President of the United States told Fox News Wednesday morning after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched a surprise ballistic missile attack on U.S. forces in Jordan Tuesday evening. Well, a version of that, actually.

Every missile was intercepted. Then U.S. and Saudi aircraft struck Iranian proxy infrastructure across eastern Iraq. And now Trump has promised Iran is about to experience something considerably more severe than what it’s received so far.

“We’re going to beat the living daylights out of them,” he told Fox News. He was even more direct in the clip that circulated: “We’re going to beat the f—— s— out of them.”

This is not empty rhetoric. This administration has demonstrated — repeatedly, with documented results — that it means exactly what it says about Iran. Operation Midnight Hammer destroyed their nuclear program. Operation Epic Fury decimated their military and political leadership. Three weeks of daily strikes have followed their ceasefire violations. Bridges and power plants have been explicitly threatened. And now, after a direct ballistic missile attack on American personnel in Jordan, Trump has announced what’s coming next in language that leaves absolutely no room for misinterpretation.

Let’s be clear about what Iran attempted Tuesday. Not a drone attack through a proxy. Not an indirect harassment of commercial shipping. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched ballistic missiles from Iranian soil, targeting American military forces directly. They got everything intercepted and a joint U.S.-Saudi strike on their logistics network in Iraq in return. And their response to that outcome was to continue talks about a potential ceasefire.

The ceasefire conversation is the tell. Iran wants relief from the military and economic pressure the Trump administration has applied. They want a deal. But they keep firing between negotiating sessions — testing whether they can extract concessions while simultaneously continuing to attack American forces and American allies. Every previous American administration gave them that option. The Iran deal. The nuclear negotiations. The endless diplomatic engagement that produced nothing while Iran’s centrifuges kept spinning and their proxies kept killing Americans.

Trump’s answer to that model has been consistent since January: no, and here’s what happens if you keep trying it.

Tuesday night, Iran tried it again. They fired ballistic missiles at American forces in Jordan. Every missile was shot down. Their proxy infrastructure in Iraq got destroyed in the same evening. And Wednesday morning, the President of the United States went on Fox News and told them personally what’s coming.

Thirty years of American presidents talked tough about Iran and then negotiated. Trump talks tough about Iran and then bombs them. The IRGC has now received enough evidence to understand the difference.

They’re going to get a beating. He said so.

They should believe him. The track record says they should.

SCOTUS Gives Florida Greenlight To Get Justice Against Child Killer

The U.S. Supreme Court and Florida’s highest court have firmly rejected last-ditch efforts to halt the execution of James Aren Duckett, a former police officer convicted of the brutal 1987 rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl, clearing the way for the long-delayed delivery of justice.

Duckett, 68, was scheduled for lethal injection at noon on July 28, 2026, at Florida State Prison. Governor Ron DeSantis signed the death warrant in February, initially setting an earlier date that was delayed for additional DNA testing.

The Florida Supreme Court on July 24 denied Duckett’s motion for a stay of execution, affirming a lower court’s rejection of his sixth successive postconviction motion and a second post-warrant request for further DNA testing.

In its ruling, the Florida Supreme Court stated: “We affirm the circuit court’s rulings. We therefore deny Duckett’s motion for a stay of execution.”

The justices noted that prior DNA testing results “did not exonerate Duckett” and that additional claims were procedurally barred.

No rehearing would be considered.

Chief Justice Couriel and Justices Muñiz, Grosshans, Francis, and Sasso concurred.

Duckett’s attorneys then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court, filing an application for a stay of execution (docketed as 26A119) along with a petition for a writ of certiorari.

They argued that the denial of further DNA testing violated due process and claimed “no direct evidence has ever linked Mr. Duckett to the crime,” insisting that untested evidence could demonstrate innocence or reduce his sentence. The filing warned of a potential “wrongful execution.”

The Supreme Court denied the stay applications for both Duckett and fellow death-row inmate Dominick Occhicone on July 28, allowing Florida’s scheduled double execution to proceed.

The denials came after the state responded and the full briefing process was completed.

Duckett was a Mascotte police officer when he was convicted nearly four decades ago of sexually battering and murdering 11-year-old Teresa McAbee.

He has remained on death row for more than 30 years through successive appeals.

After DeSantis signed the warrant, courts granted limited DNA testing; the results proved inconclusive and failed to support claims of innocence.

Subsequent requests for more testing were rejected as time-barred and lacking merit.

One justice described certain postconviction motions as “both time-barred and frivolous, undoubtedly filed only for unreasonably delaying his execution further.”

This case emphasizes the necessity of finality in capital cases involving the most heinous crimes.

Endless successive challenges, even after DNA opportunities have been provided and exhausted without exoneration, risk turning the justice system into a never-ending delay mechanism that denies closure to victims’ families.

Teresa McAbee was a child whose life was stolen in an unimaginable act of violence by someone sworn to protect the public.

After almost 40 years of legal process, the courts have determined that the convictions and sentence stand.

Florida, under Governor DeSantis, has led the nation in carrying out lawful death sentences for the worst offenders.

The state has conducted numerous executions in recent months, reflecting its commitment to enforce the law as written and as upheld by juries and appellate courts.

Denials of stays in Duckett’s case affirm that legitimate claims receive review and dilatory tactics prompt timely accountability.

What happens next is the execution of the sentence lawfully imposed and repeatedly affirmed.

With federal and state courts having rejected further delays, the process moves forward according to the warrant.

Lower federal courts and the Eleventh Circuit also denied related challenges, including those involving simultaneous scheduling with Occhicone.

The denials in Duckett v. Florida and related filings represent the justice system functioning as intended: thorough review followed by enforcement of final judgments.

For the family of Teresa McAbee and for the principle that the most serious crimes demand the most serious consequences, these rulings deliver long-overdue resolution.

The rule of law requires that after decades of process, sentences for the rape and murder of a child are carried out.