Will Congress Pass the SAVE America Act?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is election security. Anna Paulina Luna, Republican Representative for Florida, has been outspoken about the need to “show proof of citizenship and photo identification to vote in federal elections.” She is an ardent supporter of the SAVE America Act that would require both. George Caldwell at The Daily Signal explained what the SAVE America Act is and why it should be passed. How Luna Says GOP Can Force a National ID Requirement to Vote

“The Senate has now sat on this for over 300 days,” Luna, R-Fla., told Punchbowl News in an interview published Thursday. “Something that … many members of Congress are tired of is ‘messaging bills’ … It doesn’t actually feel like we’re doing much of anything.”

“Messaging bills” are pieces of legislation with little possibility of becoming law that members support to amplify their political messaging.

Next week, the House will vote on the SAVE America Act. A previous version of the bill, the SAVE Act, passed by a 220-208 vote in April 2025.

The new bill, if signed into law, would enforce a national requirement of photo identification in order to vote in federal elections, in addition to requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration.

It would also, as in the original SAVE Act, require states to clear voter rolls of individuals who cannot prove their citizenship for federal elections.

By words and actions, most Republicans show that they want secure elections and only Americans to vote in the elections. Some Democrats, on the other hand, tend to vote against any bills that would secure elections. Mackenzie Web at Patriot Fetch shared the following information. NEW: 84% Of Americans Demand Nationwide Voter ID Requirements With SAVE Act

Recent polling [February 2026] reveals a significant shift in public sentiment surrounding voter identification laws. With 84% of Americans backing the SAVE Act, which proposes mandatory photographic identification for voting in national elections, the issue is gaining increased traction. This overwhelming support places pressure on Congressional Republicans to act decisively on a key promise to bolster election integrity.

The SAVE Act, championed by Rep. Chip Roy and Sen. Mike Lee, stipulates that voters must present valid proof of citizenship and government-issued photo ID to participate in federal elections. This aligns with a broad public desire for confidence in electoral processes. A prominent statement from House Administration Committee Chair Bryan Steil underscores this viewpoint: “Americans should be confident their elections are being run with integrity.” His comments highlight the urgent push among supporters for transparent and secure elections, especially given concerns about mail-in ballots and voter registration practices.

Bipartisan support for voter ID measures has been consistently high. Data from surveys, including those from Gallup and Pew Research, indicates that a majority across political lines advocates for some form of voter ID requirements. This is evident from a 2021 Monmouth poll, which showed that 80% of respondents favored ID requirements, cutting across party affiliations.

Supporters frame the SAVE Act as a solution to public fears regarding electoral fraud, even though such fraud is rarely documented. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s strong stance on the matter emphasizes this urgency….

In stark contrast, Democratic leaders have voiced strong opposition. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries criticized the legislation as a thinly veiled attempt to limit voter access, suggesting it could disenfranchise millions. This tension reveals a stark ideological divide, with Democrats asserting that voter fraud is not a prevalent issue and that restrictions disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. The concern about disenfranchisement highlights the complexities of the debate surrounding election integrity.

Despite the partisan conflict, the SAVE Act remains a politically potent proposal. It taps into lingering doubts from the 2020 election and reflects a broader conservative push for electoral reform. Public skepticism regarding the legitimacy of that election persists, as highlighted by recent polling indicating that 38% of Americans question the validity of President Biden’s victory, with 69% of Republicans echoing these sentiments.

 

When Will the Savior Return to the Earth?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Moses 7 and a lesson titled “The Lord Called His People Zion.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

Throughout history, people have tried to achieve what Enoch and his people accomplished: building an ideal society where there is no poverty or violence. As God’s people, we share this desire. We call it building Zion, and it includes—in addition to caring for people in need and promoting peace—making covenants, dwelling together in righteousness, and becoming one with each other and with Jesus Christ, “the King of Zion” (Moses 7:53). If the world, your community, or your family isn’t quite what you want it to be, it’s helpful to ask, How did Enoch and his people do it? How did they become “of one heart and one mind” (Moses 7:18) despite the contention around them? Among the many details Moses 7 gives us about Zion, a particularly valuable one for Latter-day Saints might be this: Zion is not just a city—it is a condition of the heart and spirit. Zion, as the Lord has taught, is “the pure in heart” (Doctrine and Covenants 97:21). So perhaps the best way to build Zion is to start in our own hearts and homes.

This scripture block teaches several principles, including (1) I can help build Zion (Moses 7:16-21, 27, 53, 62-69); (2) Jesus Christ is “the King of Zion;” (3) God weeps – and rejoices – for His children (Moses 7:28-69); (4) Jesus Christ will come again in the last days (Moses 7:59-67).

This essay will discuss principle #4 about the return of Jesus Christ in the last days. We will first study the applicable verses, Moses 7:59-67.

59 And Enoch beheld the Son of Man ascend up unto the Father; and he called unto the Lord, saying: Wilt thou not come again upon the earth? Forasmuch as thou art God, and I know thee, and thou hast sworn unto me, and commanded me that I should ask in the name of thine Only Begotten; thou hast made me, and given unto me a right to thy throne, and not of myself, but through thine own grace; wherefore, I ask thee if thou wilt not come again on the earth.

60 And the Lord said unto Enoch: As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfil the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah;

61 And the day shall come that the earth shall rest, but before that day the heavens shall be darkened, and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth; and the heavens shall shake, and also the earth; and great tribulations shall be among the children of men, but my people will I preserve;

62 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.

63 And the Lord said unto Enoch: Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there, and we will receive them into our bosom, and they shall see us; and we will fall upon their necks, and they shall fall upon our necks, and we will kiss each other;

64 And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest.

65 And it came to pass that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, in the last days, to dwell on the earth in righteousness for the space of a thousand years;

66 But before that day he saw great tribulations among the wicked; and he also saw the sea, that it was troubled, and men’s hearts failing them, looking forth with fear for the judgments of the Almighty God, which should come upon the wicked.

67 And the Lord showed Enoch all things, even unto the end of the world; and he saw the day of the righteous, the hour of their redemption, and received a fulness of joy;

These scripture verses tell us that Jesus Christ will return to earth in the last days – our day. Enoch’s vision, especially what’s recorded in Moses 7:59-67, is one of history’s first prophecies of the Savior’s Second Coming.

Former President Russell M. Nelson, in his October 2015 general conference address to the sisters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave the following description of the part that women play in preparing for the Savior’s coming: (“A Plea to My Sisters,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov 2015, 95-96; emphasis added). 

It would be impossible to measure the influence that … women have, not only on families but also on the Lord’s Church, as wives, mothers, and grandmothers; as sisters and aunts; as teachers and leaders; and especially as exemplars and devout defenders of the faith.

This has been true in every gospel dispensation since the days of Adam and Eve. Yet the women of this dispensation are distinct from the women of any other because this dispensation is distinct from any other. This distinction brings both privileges and responsibilities.”

President Henry B. Eyring quoted the above comments in his October 2020 general conference remarks titled “Sisters in Zion.” He then added these comments: 

This dispensation is distinct in that the Lord will lead us to become prepared to be like the city of Enoch. He has described through His apostles and prophets what that transformation to a Zion people will entail….

If the past is prologue, at the time of the Savior’s coming, the daughters who are deeply committed to their covenants with God will be more than half of those who are prepared to welcome Him when He comes. But whatever the numbers, your contribution in creating unity among the people prepared for that Zion will be far greater than half….

My experience has taught me that Heavenly Father’s daughters have a gift to allay contention and to promote righteousness with their love of God and with the love of God they engender in those they serve.

In Moses 7, we learn that Enoch spoke to God face to face and received much information. Part of that information was this description of Zion found in Moses 7:18:

And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and

dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

Here is the answer to eliminating poverty in the world: seek unity, be righteous, and care for the poor. When the Savior returns to earth, He will return to a gathering of righteous men, women, and children. If we want to see Jesus Christ return, we should start with becoming righteous ourselves and then helping others to become righteous.

Is Your Phone a Tool or a Companion?

Families are stronger when individuals use technology as a tool rather than a companion. It is a fact that an individual can become addicted to social media of all types.

In her article published at The Deseret News, Emma Neff stated that there are “serious terms that come from a tech-reliant society.” She wrote, “Textaphrenia and Textiety both refer to the anxiety that coms from constant texting and messaging notifications.” She added, “Nomophobia, short for “no-mobile-phone phobia,” is the fer or anxiety of being without a device…. [which] can lead to excessive phone usage and dependence on the device for social connection, validation and entertainment.” 

One does not need an official nomophobia diagnosis to be glued to one’s phone. According to a recent report from Review.org and quoted by Neff, “85% of people check their phones within 10 minutes of waking up, and 75% would not feel comfortable leaving their homes without it, as previously reported by the Deseret News.”

While phones are vital tools, many users are finding they can no longer function without them, and neither can their families. Parents may find phones and technology to be a source of contention in their homes as they strike a balance with themselves and their kids with their use.

Experts have shared their own tips and tricks that could be helpful for some as they try to enjoy the benefits media and technology brings, without the negative effects.

Rebecca Densley, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University who studies the intersection of media development and family life, told the Deseret News the solution to less technology use, isn’t abstinence.

“We don’t want to take away everything, and have our kids lose the ability to benefit from what media has to offer,” Densley said. “When parents are having regular and open conversations with their kids about media use, there are a lot of positive effects, and it helps to reduce the negative effects.”

Densley noted that while strict rules may work for young children, adolescents require more “buy-in.” Without a collaborative discussion, teens may succumb to the “forbidden fruit effect,” where restricted media becomes more desirable.” …

Experts agree that digital discipline starts with the adult. … parents must model socialization without screens….

To help bridge the gap between work and family, Robbins suggests being transparent. I you must check a work email, tell them when you need to use your phone and how long, then physically put it away.

Passive consumption versus active engagement

The impact of technology often depends on the “how” rather than the “if” or “how much.”

To help break habits and become more intentional with tech use, experts suggest a mix of physical and mental resets.

·         The media fast: Densley and author Josohua Becker recommend a “media fast.” If you return to your phone and immediately slide into old habits, your behavior may be more hardwired and could use a more intentional plan for technology use.

·         The rubber band trick: Becker also suggests putting a rubber band or hair tie around your phone to disrupt the scroll. This physical “speed bump” makes it harder to see the screen, forcing users to be more intentional.

·         Analog alternatives: Rather than letting the phone be a “Swiss Army knife,” experts recommend using alternatives like swapping a digital alarm clock for a physical one, or to use paper planners to keep your phone out of your hands.

·         Digital sunsets: The Mayo Clinic and Brooks both advocate for “the digital sunrise and sunset” rule: no screens for the first hour of the day or the last hour before bed.

Finding ‘awe’ in the real world

While structured rules and resets like digital sunsets protect our time, the next step is what to do with that reclaimed space. Reclaiming time from technology allows for unplugged activities and hobbies like cooking, walking, painting or playing board games. Densley noted research emphasizes the importance of “awe,” the grounding feeling found in nature or music, and how that ‘awe’ moments could replace digital feedback loops….

A 2023 study published in Scientific Reports found that daily experience of awe significantly reduced stress and improved overall well-being.

Densley added, “Those experiences of awe can be really grounding….”

What to do next

The goal, Densley says, is intentionality. These devices are designed to capture and keep attention and fighting that pull takes practice.

By recognizing this and giving grace, Densley shares through treating the phone as a tool rather than a companion, families and individuals can move forward through positive constructive conversations about technology use.

 

What Is Meant by the Message Put Forth by Leftists?

The topic of discussion for this Freedom Friday concerns the message put forth by the Left. Their message is often inane and not worthy of comment. Sometimes their message is downright stupid. The comment by singer-songwriter Billie Eilish at the Grammy’s last Sunday is one of the more stupid ones, a message about which she probably did not think too seriously.

In his article published at The Daily Signal, Tyler O’Neil, senior editor, explained why Eilish’s “statement ‘no one is illegal on stolen land’ perfectly captures at least one inherent contradiction in the Left’s victimhood world view.” He claims that her statement “highlights what the ‘immigration’ debate is really about.” 

Activists who oppose the enforcement of immigration law often condemn the idea that any alien should be considered “illegal,” regardless of whether they came to America in accordance with our laws. They seek to remove any moral legitimacy from limits on immigration, suggesting that all immigration is permissible.

Yet leftists also claim that the United States was built on iniquity – that America broke its treaties with Native American tribes and effectively stole the land from them. While the U.S. does have a complicated history of land acquisition, this argument conveniently ignores the archeological record, which suggests that the Native Americans we often  refer to as “Indigenous” also took the land by force.

The “stolen land” motif isn’t really about tracing the history of which tribe “originally” owned the land – it’s more about propping up the victimhood status of the Left’s preferred constituencies….

‘No One Is Illegal’

To illustrate the point, let’s just accept one half of Eilish’s statement as true for a moment.

Let’s say “no one is illegal” in the way immigration activists mean it. Immigration law has no moral authority, so let’s open the borders and allow anyone to come here, regardless of their intent. We’d allow immigrants who want to honor our country by following the law, and those who do not follow the law. We’ll allow immigrants who intend to work hard and assimilate, and also immigrants who intend to lie, cheat, and steal. We’ll allow model citizens who face oppression in their home countries and we’ll allow terrorists and spies from America’s adversaries.

If no one is illegal, let them all come….

‘On Stolen Land’

Now, let’s take the second half of the statement seriously.

The United States was built on “stolen land,” so let’s return it to its original inhabitants. Let’s give the Southwest back to Mexico, then back to Span, then back to the Aztecs, and then back to the people the Aztecs slew and enslaved. Let’s give the Northeast back to the Iroquois, and then back to the Native Americans the Iroquois slew and replaced. Let’s give Florida back to the Seminoles, and then back to the people the Seminoles slew and replaced.

Let’s remove all the ostensibly evil “invaders” who “stole land.” Perhaps we should even remove all the human beings who settled North America in the first place and return it to the mammoths, or the dinosaurs, or the amoebas. How do we determine who the rightful “Indigenous” people are?

At this point, the inherent contradiction should be obvious. Any human settlement in the land now referred to as the United States could be considered “immigration,” and any immigration that involves taking ownership of the land could be considered “theft.”

Either the land has been stolen, or no one is illegal on it. You can’t have it both ways.

What’s the Answer?

Ultimately, you have to draw a line somewhere, and I think it’s quite reasonable to draw the line at the sovereignty of the United States of America.

America is not without its sins, but our Constitution [is] arguably set up as just a system of representative government as is possible on Earth. We can hold our leaders accountable at the ballot box. We enjoy a legal and economic system that rewards creativity and invention, which help produce wealth for everyone. We enjoy a broad swath of fundamental rights.

Our system is imperfect, but it is far more just than the Left would have us believe.

The same is true of immigration law. While the Left is throwing a fit about President Donald Trump’s attempts to deport illegal aliens, we shouldn’t forget that the U.S. has a comparatively welcoming immigration system.

The United States wants to welcome immigrants, but we want immigrants who will follow our laws, and we want to protect our sovereignty as a nation….

The United States has an interest in preventing terrorists, criminals, or agents of foreign powers form settling in our country….

But, if we understand what the Left means in combining [the two ideas spoken by Eilish], the message is obvious: “I hate the United States and reject its right to be a sovereign nation.”

O’Neil stated that he protests that final statement, and most Americans would agree with him. We do not need anyone living in the United States who hates America, and we certainly have the right to be a sovereign nation. Numerous commentators are calling the so-called protesters in Minnesota “communists.” If they really are communists and/or working for foreign interests, their true goal is to overthrow the government of the United States. Why would any sane person support that message?

What Kind of Judge is Ana Reyes?

Judges with Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) have slowed or halted many of President Donald Trump’s policies. The Trump administration tried to deport 350,000 Haitians, but a district judge stopped the deportation. Does she have TDS?

Fred Lucas explained the situation with this judge in his article published at The Daily Signal, a portion of which follows. 

The Joe Biden-appointed judge who halted the Trump administration’s deportation of about 350,000 Haitians has a background as a private Democrat financial supporter, though with a sometimes-unpredictable judicial record.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, of the District of Columbia, on Monday determined President Donald Trump’s termination of Temporary Protected Status for certain Haitian immigrants “shall be null, void, and of no legal effect” until the case is complete.

Here are six things to know about Reyes.

1. ‘Transgender’ Military Service Ruling

In March 2025, Reyes blocked a Trump administration executive order that expelled certain transgender military service members.

The Trump administration argued the order barring transgender individuals “turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.”

Reyes countered that the order was a ban on transgender people….

2. Litigating Against Trump

In a 2018 case that predated her time as a judge, Reyes was on the legal team representing 19 people who crossed the southern border without going through a port of entry. A federal judge in the case said the Trump administration could not automatically deport anyone for not using a port of entry….

3. Democrat Donor

Federal Election Commission records show that Reyes was a consistent donor to Democrat candidates and liberal political organizations while in private practice….

4. ‘Much-Needed Diversity’

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., suggested that President Joe Biden nominate Reyes for the D.C. district court.

A Norton press release said, “Reyes will be the first Hispanic woman and first openly LGBTQ person ever to serve on that court.” [DEI hire?]

5. Applying the Rules to Biden DOJ

Reyes was not reliably in the Biden administration’s corner after ascending to the court….

6. Sentencing for Trump Tax Leaker

In January 2024, Reyes sentenced former Internal Revenue Service consultant Charles Littlejohn to five years in prison for leaking Trump’s tax returns, along with the returns of thousands of other wealthy people.

Reyes called the leak of Trump’s tax information “an attack on our constitutional democracy.”

“When you target the sitting president of the United States, you’re targeting the office and when you’re targeting the office of the president of the United States, you’re targeting democracy – you’re targeting our constitutional system of government,” Reyes said in the sentencing.

Reyes may be a strong liberal Democrat, but she does not have Trump Derangement Syndrome. From the above-described cases, it looks like she decides in favor of the Constitution, something that we want all of our judges to do.

Is Affordability Related to Immigration Policies?

Affordability is one of the words that politicians use to discuss the conditions in the United States. They say that the results of the 2026 mid-term election will be based on affordability.

According to Steve Cortes, president of the League of American Workers, affordability is related to border security. He says that the United States has “the right – and obligation – to prioritize the well-being of our citizens, and “immigration enforcement achieves two macro-objectives at once: It makes America safer while also attacking the systemic affordability crisis.” He claims that the “evidence is already compelling. The early economic returns on immigration enforcement are nothing short of stunning.”

Fewer Illegal Aliens, Higher Wages

Real wages are the “mother’s milk” of Main Street prosperity. Most Americans do not own enough investments to really thrive from rising asset prices. Instead, their financial vitality flows form their paychecks, adjusted for the prices they must pay for the goods and services they need.

Thankfully, under President Donald Trump, real wages have risen every single month of his presidency. A big share of those benefits accrues to blue-collar workers, as this administration produces the best working-class wage growth for a new term since Richard Nixon took office in 1969. In contrast, during the Biden years, real wages declined every single month for two straight years, the worst such streak on record. These gains result largely from at least 2.5 million illegal aliens leaving America, through self-deportations as well as removals. In industries like trucking and construction, with large segments of foreign workers, pay jumps for U.S. citizens. Even the biased New York Times recently admitted that “construction wages have been rising” due to immigration enforcement.

Border Control Equals Rent Control

Masses of illegal aliens crowd out citizens in the housing market. According to Apartment List, since Trump took office, national rent prices for Americans have actually declined by 1.4%. CNBC called the current trend “one of the more renter-friendly periods in a decade.” …

… A similar trend in favor of renters blossoms nationwide. The American Apartment Association survey just revealed that 40% of owners and investors across the country say immigration policies are lowering rents….

If American citizens do not have to compete against unjust, unlawful foreign workers, then they return home every day with more real pay – returning to homes that are getting more affordable, at last.

These trends point to much better days ahead for Americans, and especially for working-class strivers who were crushed by Bidenomics.

The Voter Mandate: Secure the Country, Grow Prosperity

Law-and-order makes sense economically, plus it makes for good politics.

Voter dissatisfaction over affordability is real and profound. For instance, in my most recent poll of battleground North Carolina, Trump’s approval rating dips to -14% net, 39% to 53%. By far, the lead driver is affordability. Right now, only 30% of North Carolina voters approve of the administration’s handling of inflation, and a massive 76% cite grocery costs as a primary inflation worry.

But there is good news for Republicans, too. By a big margin, the best issue for Trump is border control/immigration. Meanwhile, the Democrats leap to denounce the federal cops and restate their aggressively open borders radicalism. No wonder the Democrat brand is in free-fall. In my survey, only 30% of North Carolina voters give a positive view of Democrats, versus 54% who disapprove.

Conclusion: What’s Working, Works

So … a big political opening unfolds. The GOP can kill two birds with one shot. Keep people safe and ease their economic burden.

Immigration enforcement represents a just and reasonable policy approach. In fact, it is a perquisite to recover our culture, national security, street safety, and societal cohesion. Concurrently, sensible immigration control brings terrific economic benefits and provides a key solution to fixing the affordability crisis.

  

What Are the Main Differences between Capitalism and Socialism?

There is a debate happening in America – capitalism versus socialism. The debate is intense, and “the recent election of socialist-leaning candidates in major U.S. cities highlights the contemporary relevance of this topic,” according to an article written by Sanjai Bhagat, Ph.D., and published at The Daily Signal. 

A recent Gallup poll finds that Americans view capitalism more positively than socialism; the 54% viewing capitalism favorably is down from 60% in 2021. Americans view socialism more negatively (57%) than positively (39%), with little movement in these attitudes over time.

How have the people of a country fared that have adopted socialism? Not so well – the evidence below indicates.

How have the people of a socialist country that have adopted capitalism fared? Very well – again, the evidence below indicates.

The primary differences between the capitalist and socialist economic systems are the ownership of the means of production, right to private property, and the incentives to work and innovate. In a capitalist system, private individuals and for-profit corporations are the major owners of the means of production. In a socialist system, the state is the major owner of the means of production.

The right to private property is a cornerstone of capitalism; this right is protected and encouraged by the state. Individuals have very limited private property rights in a socialist economy.

The capitalist system provides individuals with powerful economic incentives to work and innovate; this contributes to and stimulates their economy. One of the major flaws of the socialist system is its complete disregard for human incentives – resulting in an ongoing and significant negative impact on their economy, and more importantly, on the lives of their citizens.

We highlight the differences in the economic well-being of citizens of socialist and capitalist economies. We consider the change in economic well-being of four countries that transitioned from socialism to a more capitalist economy, to wit, Poland, Bulgaria, India, and China. Also, we consider the change in economic well-being of Cuba and Venezuela that transitioned from capitalism to socialism.

Bhagat shares charts and explanations to illustrate how life in Poland, Bulgaria, India, and China improved by using a form of capitalism and how life in Cuba and Venezuela declined by turning to socialism. The example of China shows how capitalism can improve life even under a communist government. I find it interesting that there are any Americans who think that socialism is good after watching the decline of Venezuela in our lifetime.