Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) that passed the House of Representatives last month contained numerous wins for the American people: permanent tax relief, funding for border security, an expansion of Health Savings Accounts, and even a new program to expand school choice. But arguably the most impactful accomplishment in the BBB was their success in taking a machete to the labyrinth of green new scam tax subsidies created by Joe Biden and the Democrats through the inflation-creating Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). That alone makes it the most beautiful feature of the Big Beautiful Bill.
The House’s version included key provisions sunsetting some of the worst subsidies authorized under the IRA, including:
Ending the Clean Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for any project that doesn’t start within 60 days of the enacting legislation and isn’t in service by 2028;
Ending the Clean Electricity Investment Credit and Transferability of Tax Credits for Wind and Solar;
Eliminating the Tax Credit for Residential Solar and Rebates for “Green” Products;
Repealing the Electric Vehicle Credit designed to Force Manufacturers to Abandon Gas Powered Vehicles.
The rollback of these subsidies in the House BBB was a monumental feat, especially given the army of lobbyists hired by the green energy grifters to defend these subsidies on Capitol Hill. In fact, the big spenders in the GOP caucus almost succeeded in stopping the subsidy rollback. If not for the stalwart efforts of the House Freedom Caucus and the White House stepping in at the last minute of negotiations, the green scam subsidies would not be on the chopping block.
But now the bill is in the Senate, and the initial draft released of the revised Big Beautiful Bill by Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo is anything but big or beautiful…
Our Republic depends on the integrity of every ballot and the trust the American people place in the electoral system. That trust is on the line, and I am here to continue sounding the alarm.
After reviewing credible, disturbing reports regarding Runbeck Election Services and Maricopa County’s handling of ballots during the 2024 General Election, I have formally called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch a federal investigation into whether basic election protocols were violated.
This is not partisan theater. The allegations are signs of possible systemic failures or a complete disregard for the chain of custody that protects every legal vote.
As a former prosecutor and Army Reserve intelligence officer, I do not jump to conclusions. I review the facts at hand, and I believe in due process and evidence.
But I also believe that when red flags are waving this high and wide, public servants have a duty to act.
During my time representing the people of Arizona, I have seen firsthand how trust in our elections has declined. In 2022, polling showed that more than half of Arizona voters doubted whether the official vote count reflected all legal votes. That level of public distrust is toxic to a functioning democracy, and it cannot be ignored.
Election security is national security.
In both 2020 and 2022, Arizona faced scrutiny from all sides. We endured hand counts, audits, lawsuits, and national attention. The public was told repeatedly that every vote was counted, every procedure followed. However, if the most basic rules surrounding ballot security were violated, then those assurances are meaningless.
The American people deserve to know the truth.
That is why I am asking the Justice Department to determine whether Runbeck provided a secure environment for ballot printing, transportation, and storage.
If all procedures were followed correctly, then all involved should welcome a federal investigation and seek to reaffirm public confidence. If those procedures were ignored or manipulated, then we need immediate corrective action and full accountability. A transparent process benefits everyone, regardless of political party.
Reports have indicated that there was no meaningful safeguards or oversight in place at all times. That is not just bad optics. That is a recipe for disaster. Even the appearance of impropriety damages voter confidence and invites division across the country.
As a representative for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, I take my oath to protect our Constitution seriously. That includes the right of every American to participate in a fair election. When systems break down or appear compromised, it is not enough to hope for the best. We must act to investigate, fix them, and restore faith in the system.
Some critics will try to paint this investigation as just another political stunt. They will try to lump it in with previous election disputes to dismiss it out of hand. But that misses the point entirely. This request is not being driven by partisanship. It is being driven by facts, by public concern, and by a genuine desire to strengthen our democratic institutions.
We are not repeating past fights. We are demanding answers in the present. We are relying on the lawful, nonpartisan authority of the Justice Department to get to the bottom of this. We are asking for transparency, not a political advantage.
So, what does this mean for the people of Arizona? It means you are not being ignored. Your concerns about the integrity of our elections are being taken seriously. Your right to have your voice heard is being defended.
To the American people watching this unfold, know this: we are not looking to undermine democracy. We are looking to restore and strengthen it.
We are not interested in sowing chaos. We are committed to restoring order and confidence. Because when trust in elections breaks down, the entire system begins to fracture.
I will keep pushing for this investigation until the necessary action is taken. I will not back down from the responsibility to represent the people of Arizona with clarity, courage, and conviction. Our elections are too important to be left in doubt. Let’s fix this now before it is too late.
Around the country, the “war on cars” has become apparent. From New York’s congestion pricing scheme to the onslaught of road diets and protected bike lanes to “reallocate” the public space away from cars, there is hardly anywhere you can travel without experiencing the increased hassle and cost of driving your personal vehicle.
Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to reverse the woke transportation trends at the U.S. Department of Transportation under former Secretary Pete Buttigieg, many state and city governments remain committed to punishing drivers.
One specific tool being used to implement the anti-car, woke transportation agenda is vehicle mileage limits and taxes. For example, in Washington State, they passed a law that sets a target of reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita by 50% by 2050. Their department of transportation is empowered to create policies and strategies that would effectively force people to give up their cars. And of course, for our neighbors to the West, California lawmakers have proposed a mileage tax or “road charge” determined by how many miles a person drives in an effort to reduce carbon emissions and endlessly subsidize their failed transit system. Implementing this would require invasive measures such as reporting odometer readings or installing “special plug-in devices.” This kind of Orwellian intrusion on our freedom to travel privately has no place in any American city, even in California…
The week just passed was a rough one for California Governor Gavin Newsom. Early in the week, Newsom’s complete lack of leadership in his home state combined with a similar dereliction of duty by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to justify President Donald Trump’s move to activate both the National Guard and 700 U.S. Marines to move into downtown Los Angeles to control escalating riots there.
As if that weren’t humiliating enough, President Trump held a White House ceremony Thursday during which he signed a series of three resolutions passed under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) designed to kill California’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate which has been a centerpiece of Newsom’s regulatory policies.
“Under the previous administration, the federal government gave left-wing radicals in California dictatorial powers to control the future of the entire car industry all over the country,” Trump said in remarks preceding the signing. “It’s been a disaster for this country.”
In response, Newsom said in a statement, “The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California’s waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California’s efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution.” It’s pretty weak sauce, but it’s all he has at this point.
Well, except for another round of lawfare, that is. Within minutes of Trump’s affixing his signature (no autopen involved) to the resolutions, California Attorney General Rob Bonta had filed a lawsuit challenging the resolutions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Bonta was joined by Democrat attorneys general from 10 other states.
KCRA Channel 3 TV in Sacramento pointed out that this suit is the 26th time Bonta has sued the Trump administration since January. Bonta admitted during his press conference that his office has already spent $5 million in pursuing its Trump-focused lawfare agenda, but no worries: The state assembly recently authorized a $25 million boost to Bonta’s budget to continue his Quixotic strategy.
repeal a waiver under the clean air act issued by the Biden EPA in 2023 which allows California to mandate all new cars sold by 2035 be what the California Air Resources Board (CARB) classifies as “zero emissions vehicles,” or ZEVs;
block rules requiring zero-emission sales targets for commercial trucks; and
eliminate higher standards for heavy-duty diesel engines to reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution.
The central claim in Bonta’s lawsuit is that Congress’s use of the CRA to revoke California’s Clean Air Act waivers is unprecedented and illegal. Enacted in 1996, the CRA gives congress authority to revoke regulations that are finalized by an outgoing administration. Passed on a bipartisan vote of congress, it is designed to limit the exact sort of effort witnessed in the final months of the Biden administration to shove through as many new regulations as possible before leaving office.
CRA actions are exempt from the Senate filibuster and not subject to judicial review. However, because the CRA has rarely been invoked since it became law, it has never previously been used to rescind a waiver issued by EPA or any other federal regulator. Bonta is banking on the federal courts being willing to intervene based on an argument that the issuance of a waiver does not constitute a regulatory action. While what we’ve seen over the last five months indicates a likelihood that Bonta and his fellow plaintiffs will be able to shop for a district court judge who will be willing to issue a temporary injunction, their prospects of prevailing at the appellate level or the U.S. Supreme Court seem dim.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who authored one of the resolutions, frames the issue as a defense of consumer choice, telling Politico, “These mandates force Americans into vehicles they don’t want or can’t afford, all while ignoring the realities of our grid and supply chains.” The reality is that few Americans really want to buy EVs, which is the motivator for Newsom’s attempt to force them.
It’s all bad news for Gov. Newsom, who has been relegated to a complaining bystander in his own state as others act to address problems of his own creation. That’s no way to run a state, Governor.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
One of President Trump’s most important campaign promises was to bring accountability and transparency to federal government spending. Under the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his administration didn’t waste any time getting to work.
Within weeks of Trump’s inauguration, DOGE had uncovered billions of dollars in waste and abuse of taxpayer funds under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Here are just a few of the ways the Trump administration discovered USAID was spending your tax dollars:
$1.5 million to “advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.”
$2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala.
Millions to EcoHealth Alliance — which was involved in research at the Wuhan lab.
$1 million to boost French-speaking LGBTQ groups in West and Central Africa through the State Department.
$15 million for condoms to the Taliban through USAID.
This list barely scratches the surface of the waste and abuse that was discovered. But now, it appears it’s not just the federal government that’s been throwing your money around to outlandish woke initiatives. Arizona may have its very own USAID scandal…
Following multiple complaints regarding the social studies curriculum recently approved by the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board on May 13, the Arizona Department of Education launched a formal investigation. On Wednesday, June 11, Arizona State Superintendent Tom Horne held a press conference to announce the findings. He stated that he would report to the federal government that SUSD violated a statement they signed saying they would not teach Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) content.
Horne clarified that his comments were directed at what he called the three “woke” members of the SUSD Governing Board who voted in favor of the curriculum. Superintendent Scott Menzel responded to this characterization, arguing it was unfair and uninformed—particularly without a full review of the 1,250-page textbook. He called such labeling “a problem from his perspective.”
While finding a common definition of “woke” is a bit of a challenge, most would agree that it originally meant being aware of social injustices, particularly around race, and it was rooted in activism. The term has now evolved into a broader often vague term for hyper-awareness of social issues. Critics often say it is dogmatic overreach where someone pushes rigid beliefs or ideologies beyond reason, imposing them on others without flexibility or evidence.
So, is it fair to describe these board members as “woke”?
Board Members Past
When Member Sharkey first announced he was running for the board, he said it was because of the rise in the parents’ rights movement (rights codified in Arizona Revised Statues), which he blamed (without citing any evidence) for the issues plaguing SUSD. He rejects the idea that parents are best positioned to make educational and healthcare decisions for their children, asserting that trained professionals know better. Sharkey’s reluctance to recognize these rights suggests a troubling approach to governance that may not prioritize parental input nor respect their legal parental rights.
Dr. Donna Lewis, SUSD Governing Board President, ran on her years of educational experience, including being selected as the national superintendent of the year during her time at the Creighton School District. Her academic record leaves a lot to be desired with 13% of her students proficient in ELA and 8% in math the year she was selected. Additionally, her leadership style has been criticized for creating a hostile and toxic environment, prompting a formal public apology from a school board member after her departure.
Then there is Dr. Pittinsky, another education professional and an expert in public education with 25 years’ experience. Someone who only publicly revealed the conflict of interest with his business ties with SUSD after he was called out. Someone who thinks so highly of SUSD that he put his kid in a private school rather than SUSD.
All three of these board members ran on “protecting SUSD” and Menzel and his “woke” curriculum of DEI, SEL, and gender identity. So far, they have shown themselves to be a predictable rubber stamp for whatever Menzel wants.
Dogmatic overreach?
Superintendent Menzel’s Past and Controversial Remarks
Superintendent Menzel previously led Michigan’s Washtenaw Intermediate School District, where he emphasized equity, inclusion, and social justice. In an interview before leaving Michigan, Menzel described white supremacy as deeply embedded in the fabric of American society, stating that acknowledging it offers a chance to “dismantle, disrupt, and recreate something that’s socially just and more equitable.”
These comments drew sharp criticism from Arizona GOP legislators, who labeled his statements as divisive and inappropriate for someone in public education.
So, is it proper to label the three board members as “woke”?
I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.
Curriculum Content and Allegations of Bias
In addition to Horne, Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan also raised concerns about the new social studies curriculum and the anti-police messages they contain. Examples of anti-police rhetoric include textbook passages noting that “several police killings caused the nation to grapple with systemic racism,” and “Black Lives Matter activists and others argue that the deaths of many Black people were the result of institutional racism.” The text also mentions that Black men are statistically more than twice as likely to be killed by police than white men.
Critics argue these lessons present a one-sided perspective and fail to encourage critical thinking. For example, the curriculum omits key facts in controversial cases, such as the Department of Justice findings in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri, which concluded that Brown did not have his hands up and was engaged in a physical altercation with the officer trying to take his gun. Likewise, the curriculum does not mention a Harvard study that reportedly found no racial bias in police shootings after examining hundreds of cases.
Menzel has denied that the curriculum is anti-police or promotes indoctrination, insisting it encourages critical thinking and offers diverse perspectives. However, critics argue the content leans more toward ideological teaching than balanced education. Indoctrination, they argue, is defined by presenting only one viewpoint without room for discussion or dissent—contrary to the principles of real education, which promote inquiry and evidence-based analysis.
Again, don’t take my word for it, see for yourself:
Given the content of the curriculum, the past actions of the board members, and Superintendent Menzel’s own public remarks, it seems labeling the board members and even Menzel as “woke” is appropriate.
When Menzel tells you he would never use an anti-police curriculum or that he is promoting critical thinking among students, or there is no evidence to support any of the claims against the curriculum, don’t believe him. He is lying and trying to gaslight you.
It is incumbent on all of us concerned about the future of SUSD to contact the Governing Board members and tell them to withdraw the approval of this radical curriculum. Any purchase orders placed to procure the materials should be canceled.
SUSD is facing difficult financial challenges caused by declining enrollment, a result of Menzel’s failed policies. Continuing down the path of implementing this curriculum will not only serve to accelerate the declining enrollment but put millions of federal dollars at risk. With the loss of the federal money, can school closures be far behind?
Menzel can continue to lie and push back against the federal government, but he is playing a high-risk game, a game he is likely to lose. He is putting the future of SUSD in jeopardy to satisfy his own ego.
The Governing Board needs to seriously consider replacing Menzel before he completely destroys SUSD.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
