More than half of all states in the USA have distracted driving laws that either prohibit texting while driving or limit smartphone usage to hands-free mode when behind the wheel. With smart glasses on the rise, some states are looking to lump these wearable gadgets in with the same handset restrictions, and Democrat stronghold Illinois is poised to be the first to limit smart glasses on the road under House Bill 4843.

Distracted driving is a notable problem in the United States. According to the latest stats from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 315,167 people were injured in distracted driving cases and 3,208 were killed in 2024. These numbers are in spite of distracted driving laws that already exist in most states today.

The bill is waiting to be signed by Gov. Pritzker.

Still, Democrats love to add laws to the books, and this one is no different. Sponsored by Illinois state Reps. Michael J. Kelly (D) and Angelica Guerrero-Cuellar (D) and Illinois state Sen. Ram Villivalam (D), House Bill 4843 serves as an amendment to the Illinois Vehicle Code.

The bill includes a number of various changes; chief among them, however, is the addition of two new device categories that fall on the distracted driving list.

The longer arm of the law

The first is AI pins. While these aren’t widely popular yet, AI pins are wearable gadgets — which are usually clipped to a shirt or worn around the neck on a pendant or on a band around the wrist — that come packed with generative AI built in. These devices are typically used to record, save, and analyze conversations, such as work meetings, phone calls, or conversations with friends.

These devices are almost always display-free, making them a dubious choice for a distracted driving bill. I’m finding a hard time seeing how AI pins could divert a driver’s attention from the road or why drivers would use one in their car in the first place, but perhaps Illinois is just covering its bases in case AI pins suddenly gain new distraction-worthy features in the future. For now, these aren’t that big of a problem for anyone on the road.

RELATED: Google wants your health data. Here’s how to choose wisely

Zach Laidlaw

The second device category in the bill includes smart glasses. This is a tricky segment, because there are several different types of smart glasses, some of which pose a bigger threat to drivers than others:

AI smart glasses, like the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2, are equipped with cameras for the glasses to see what you see and record footage, as well as a microphone and speakers for audio and voice commands. These do not have a heads-up display that could block the driver’s view or divert their attention while operating a vehicle.Heads-up-display smart glasses, like the Meta Ray-Ban Display, do come with a display embedded directly in the lenses. HUD glasses can display different types of information directly in your line of sight, such as messages and notifications, potentially causing all kinds of distractions that could get drivers into trouble on the road. While these glasses pose a bigger driver threat and could possibly warrant a ticket if caught using them behind the wheel, they aren’t as widely available for purchase quite yet.Finally, AR/VR glasses and goggles use embedded displays to change the world you see in front of you or put you into a different digital world entirely. These types of glasses obviously have the largest distraction potential, and they shouldn’t be used inside a motor vehicle.

According to the bill, smart glasses of all kinds (it doesn’t call out any specific type, so we can assume that all fall into this category) and AI pins will be restricted to hands-free usage while driving. These devices can also be used when the vehicle is stopped and in neutral or park. Otherwise, drivers are prohibited from engaging with these gadgets, just like their smartphones.

House Bill 4843 is currently waiting to be signed by Illinois Democrat Gov. JB Pritzker. Illinois is the first state to pursue this legislation, but other state lawmakers will likely hop on board if and when smart glasses grow in popularity.

​Driving, Safety, Ai, Smartphone, Smart glasses, Illinois, Jb pritzker, Car, Tech 

Anyone who has spent time on a university campus recently has likely been forced to sit through a Native American land acknowledgment.

At Arizona State University, one plays on repeat as guests wait for graduation ceremonies to begin. Faculty in my college must sit through the ritual before we can even start business meetings.

The proper response to historical injustice is not to destroy historical evidence. It is to preserve it, study it honestly, and allow future generations to learn from it.

As you might expect, no university is handing back its land. Neither are the professors who recite these acknowledgments with the solemnity of a Marxist prayer while continuing to live comfortably on the same “tribal lands” they claim were unjustly taken.

Instead, they join celebrities such as Billie Eilish in proclaiming that “no one is illegal on stolen land” while living, working, and drawing salaries on the very land they call stolen.

Universities have perfected the art of virtue signaling. These modern sophists repeat fashionable slogans without changing their own behavior.

Until now, land acknowledgments have mostly been harmless theater, something for the larger community to mock or ignore. But the ideology behind them is no longer satisfied with symbolic gestures. It is beginning to reshape museums, archaeology, and our understanding of American history.

A new report from the Goldwater Institute by anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss argues that a movement originally intended to promote respect for Native American remains has evolved into something very different.

Instead of balancing scientific inquiry with legitimate tribal concerns, museums and universities increasingly adopt interpretations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act that close off research, empty museum collections, and place archaeological evidence beyond the reach of scholars.

Congress enacted NAGPRA in 1990 to address genuine abuses. Archaeologists had sometimes removed human remains and funerary objects without sufficient respect for tribal beliefs. The law sought to correct those wrongs while preserving legitimate scientific research.

Sacred objects, identifiable ancestral remains, and funerary items could be returned to affiliated tribes, while materials outside those categories would remain available for study and public education.

According to Weiss, that compromise is disappearing.

RELATED: Trump’s Justice Department is shining a light on woke universities — finally

Werner Forman/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Today, institutions increasingly treat materials Congress never intended to repatriate as sacred tribal property. Weiss documents examples involving ordinary research samples, animal bones, pollen samples, carbon-dating materials, and other archaeological evidence being transferred out of scientific collections under expansive interpretations of federal regulations.

Once these materials are repatriated and reburied, many become effectively unavailable for future scientific study.

That should concern anyone who values historical inquiry.

Every generation develops better methods of studying the past. DNA sequencing, isotope analysis, and improved dating techniques have revolutionized archaeology over the past 30 years. Materials that seemed scientifically unremarkable in 1990 can yield new discoveries today.

Once those materials are permanently reburied or removed from research collections, future discoveries become impossible.

Imagine applying the same principle elsewhere.

Suppose medieval manuscripts could no longer be studied because descendants of their authors objected. Suppose Civil War artifacts disappeared into private collections because modern groups claimed a spiritual interest in them.

Historians would rightly protest that the past belongs to all humanity, not merely to those who claim the strongest emotional attachment to it.

Weiss also argues that some archaeological materials predate any historically identifiable modern tribe, making cultural affiliation itself a matter of dispute. In such cases, the objection is not merely to disrespectful handling. The objection is to the possession of artifacts at all.

Yet something very similar is happening in parts of American archaeology.

The irony is obvious. Universities constantly tell the public to “follow the science.” But here, scientific investigation increasingly yields to political pressure and ideological fashion.

Museums were once expected to preserve evidence, not remove it from public view. Archaeologists were trained to ask what the evidence reveals, not what contemporary activism permits them to say.

Weiss argues that Arizona provides an especially important case study because of its extraordinary archaeological heritage. For generations, Arizona museums and universities helped reconstruct thousands of years of Southwestern history through careful excavation, preservation, and analysis.

As more collections become inaccessible and more materials are removed from research, that work becomes increasingly difficult — and in some cases impossible.

The problem extends beyond archaeology.

Universities have increasingly adopted a philosophy that treats history primarily through oppression and colonization. Land acknowledgments are one visible expression of this worldview. They present contemporary Americans as perpetual beneficiaries of historical injustice while implying that present-day institutions possess diminished moral authority because of the past.

The White House has criticized Smithsonian leadership for teaching a politicized version of American history. It often feels as if America’s enemies hired professors and museum curators to spread anti-American propaganda at taxpayer expense.

RELATED: College professors want your child’s soul. Here’s how you can stop them.

More likely, they did not have to do a thing. They can simply sit back and watch as the radical left undermines what is beautiful in America and replaces it with the intersectionality grid.

This outlook changes how universities approach nearly everything they teach.

Rather than ask, “What happened?” they increasingly ask, “Whose narrative should prevail?” Rather than preserve evidence so future generations can investigate it, they prioritize symbolic acts of moral repair over continued inquiry.

That’s backward.

The proper response to historical injustice is not to destroy historical evidence. It is to preserve it, study it honestly, and allow future generations to learn from it.

Science and history are not enemies of respect. They are among the greatest tools we possess for understanding those who came before us.

Ironically, the universities that require faculty and students to affirm the importance of “decolonizing knowledge” often become less interested in knowledge itself.

Once political symbolism becomes more important than evidence, museums cease to function as museums. They become instruments of ideological education.

In 2020, faculty in my college were encouraged to begin “decolonizing” our curriculum. Yet this same college remains ever vigilant against any apparent Christian bias in my classes.

The solution is not to repeal NAGPRA or ignore legitimate tribal concerns. Congress intended a balance between respect for Native American communities and the preservation of scientific inquiry.

That balance should be restored.

As Weiss argues, current regulatory interpretations have moved well beyond the statute’s original purpose and placed important areas of archaeological research at risk.

Universities should be places where evidence is preserved, competing interpretations are debated, and history is pursued wherever the facts lead.

Instead, many have embraced a politics of symbolism that values moral performance over intellectual discovery.

Land acknowledgments are easy. Preserving the archaeological record for future generations is much harder.

One is an empty ritual to appease intersectional ideology.

The other is the actual work of a university.

​Arizona state university, Native american artifacts, Marxists, Goldwater institute, Nagpra, Heritage, Opinion & analysis, Land acknowledgment, Archaeology 

A former Tennessee police officer allegedly admitted to having an affair with another officer and filming their sexual activities before leaving the force.

Lisa Vidrios is a former U.S. Marine and worked at the San Diego Police Dept. before transferring to the Metro Nashville Police Department in 2022.

She also admitted that children were present in the building during the four incidents.

An investigative report said Vidrios had a sexual relationship with an unnamed 18-year veteran of the police force. The report, which was obtained by WKRN-TV, cited several videos found on Vidrios’ phone, as well as text chains and images.

At least one of those videos showed her engaging in the sexual activities in her office at Madison Middle School while school officials talked outside her door. She also admitted that children were present in the building during the four incidents.

She also had sex with the officer in his police car when it was parked at an abandoned hospital, and at various other locations.

The 37-year-old was married with children at the time and said in a department video that her husband was also a member of the Metro Police Department.

“We have three children together — ages 6, 4, and 1 years old — and we love spending time as a family and doing everything we can throughout the city of Nashville,” she said.

There is no indication of the marital status of the other officer, and his identity was not released. The report indicated that he could not be interviewed because he filed for an injury on duty pension.

Vidrios agreed to a settlement where she was found in violation of conduct unbecoming a department employee and underwent a 30-day suspension. She resigned from the force after the suspension.

RELATED: ‘High-risk’ pedophile fired by New York city after ‘horrific’ new allegations involving 12-year-old girl

A spokesperson for the mayor’s office released a brief statement about the report.

“The mayor is consistent: Our first responders are held to the highest standard. When they don’t meet that, it’s not acceptable,” the statement reads.

A district spokesperson deferred to the police department and said no students or staff were aware of the situation.

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

​Inappropriate relationship, Police officer sex, Cheating allegations, Tennessee, Crime 

After the United States’ 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026, Americans have an opportunity to look beyond the celebration and toward the coalition that will carry the American experiment through its next 250 years.

One of the most significant political developments of the past decade has been the steady movement of Hispanic voters toward conservative principles. Across the country, Hispanic Americans are rejecting the assumption that they belong permanently to one political party. Instead, many are embracing values centered on faith, family, entrepreneurship, and individual liberty.

The recent realignment among Hispanic voters can become more than a temporary political trend.

For conservatives, however, demographic movement alone is not enough. If the conservative movement hopes to build a lasting coalition, it must stop treating Hispanic voters as a constituency that receives attention only during election season.

For too long, political outreach to Hispanics has consisted of translated advertisements, a few campaign appearances, and promises made in the final weeks before Election Day.

A durable partnership requires year-round engagement. Conservatives need to invest in permanent community organizations, local leadership development, and sustained economic messaging focused on issues that directly affect working families.

Lowering the cost of living, reducing unnecessary regulations, encouraging entrepreneurship, and expanding economic opportunity all resonate deeply in Hispanic communities, where small-business ownership and upward mobility remain central aspirations.

The alignment between Hispanic voters and conservative principles is not merely political. It is cultural.

Faith is a cornerstone of life for many Hispanic families. Religious belief, community involvement, and commitment to strong family structures continue to shape daily life and personal values. These traditions align naturally with a worldview that emphasizes personal responsibility, civic engagement, and the institutions that strengthen communities.

The entrepreneurial spirit is equally powerful.

Hispanic Americans start businesses at remarkable rates, creating jobs, building wealth, and contributing to local economies. Policies that reward hard work, protect private enterprise, and expand economic freedom speak directly to those experiences.

For many families, support for constitutional government and individual liberty is rooted in personal history.

Countless Hispanic Americans arrived in the United States after witnessing economic collapse, political instability, or authoritarian rule in parts of Latin America, particularly in countries that embraced socialist or communist systems.

Their experiences offer a powerful reminder that America’s founding principles are not abstract ideals. They are safeguards against the failures that have plagued other nations.

America’s 250th anniversary presents an opportunity to tell a fuller story about the nation’s past and future.

RELATED: The GOP’s 2028 ticket math is already brutal

Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The American story has always been one of people from different backgrounds uniting around a common set of ideals. Hispanic Americans are not newcomers to that story. They are helping write its next chapter.

Many legal immigrants and first-generation Americans possess a profound appreciation for the opportunities available in the United States. They understand the extraordinary freedoms this country provides because their gratitude is rooted in lived experience.

That perspective is especially valuable at a time when political discourse often emphasizes division and identity politics over unity and patriotism.

America does not need competing tribal factions organized around race, ethnicity, sex, or other demographic categories. It needs a coalition of citizens committed to preserving the principles that have sustained the republic for two and a half centuries and passing them on to future generations.

The conservative movement has an opportunity to help build that coalition.

But it must recognize that the recent realignment among Hispanic voters can become more than a temporary political trend. It can become a permanent feature of American politics if conservatives acknowledge and cultivate the deeper convergence of values already taking shape.

We should look beyond the next election cycle and toward the next century.

If the United States is to remain a beacon of freedom for another 250 years, it will need a coalition united not by blood or ethnicity but by a shared commitment to faith, family, capitalism, and the founding ideals of the republic.

Hispanic conservatives may prove central to that American renewal.

​Democrats, Hispanic voters, Americans, Conservatives, Midterm elections, America 250, American dream, Opinion & analysis 

While people get arrested every day in Europe for “offensive speech,” America’s First Amendment remains a safeguard against criminalizing the vast majority of speech — certainly the kind that could be deemed offensive by certain groups.

Except in Fort Worth, Texas, apparently. A cop by the name of Sarah Stogner went viral last month after videos captured her telling Christian street preachers that they could be cited for “offensive speech” if their preaching offended attendees at a local Pride parade.

On a recent episode of “Come and Take It,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales reviewed the shocking footage and made a case that First Amendment violations should be fireable offenses.

Sara begins by playing the viral video of the interaction between Stogner and the evangelists.

“If someone is offended by your talking, then we have a problem,” Stogner stated, threatening to write a ticket if they didn’t comply.

“Wait, you’re going to ticket us for offensive speech?” one shocked preacher pushed back.

“Yes, absolutely. … It’s called disorderly conduct,” Stogner responded.

“No, disorderly conduct has to be accompanied by conduct,” another preacher retorted, before explaining that he was a retired federal law enforcement officer.

Sara is flabbergasted by the interaction.

“Try reading the First Amendment. … If there are any to be clear on, that is the one that you, as a cop, should be super clear on,” she comments. “And by the way, this is the epitome of why it was written actually: to keep tyrannical dictators from forcing us to keep our mouths shut about topics they didn’t want us discussing.”

Unfortunately, the situation got worse for the street preachers, who approached another cop at the festival to inform him of Stogner’s unconstitutional threat.

But he doubled down. “It depends on what you’re saying and who’s offended,” he clapped back.

“If you make fun of somebody, if you call them certain words and they feel offended by that, unfortunately that is —” he continued before one preacher cut him off by presenting a hypothetical.

“So, if I say, ‘You’re a faggot,’ and they get offended, you’re gonna cite me?” he asked, emphasizing that he would make “no threats.”

“That is a Class C ticket, unfortunately,” the cop replied.

“It depends on what you’re saying and who’s offended? I must have missed that in the Bill of Rights. Is there a footnote that I’m unaware of?” Sara asks, shocked.

The interaction then took an even wilder turn when the preachers asked the male cop about misgendering someone.

“If a biological male comes up to me who says he’s a woman, and I say, ‘Sir,’ and he gets offended, is that a citable offense?” one preacher asked.

“We’re talking gray area right now,” the cop replied.

“If they come up and say, ‘Hey, I’m offended by that,’ and you continue to do that, well, then that’s just becoming offensive to them,” he continued, suggesting that he’d give a “warning” and then move to “potential” consequences if the offensive language didn’t stop.

“So, what if I’m offended by what they say? … Will they get cited? I’m offended by all of this. I’m offended by seeing half naked men run around with children. I am deeply offended by that,” the preacher retorted.

“Unfortunately, there’s not much on our side to do anything,” the cop stated.

“It’s actually not a gray area at all. This isn’t hard. It’s not brain surgery. You are allowed to speak freely even if someone is offended. This isn’t Europe,” Sara says.

She highlights the glaring bias when it comes to “offensive speech.”

“You guys want to protect the debauchery, but any time a Christian is offended by the debauchery, you can’t do anything about that,” she declares.

Sara expresses disappointment in Fort Worth PD’s response to the Trinity Pride Fest incident.

While the department acknowledged that Sgt. Sarah Stogner (and officers) made inaccurate statements about citing people for “offensive speech,” they seemed to place more emphasis on clarifying that the citation was for a bullhorn noise ordinance violation rather than speech content. They also announced they would provide First Amendment refresher training to officers.

Sara scoffs at the idea of a “refresher” course on something as basic as the First Amendment. “It should just be a fireable offense to be that ignorant of the law,” she states.

It appears Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon may agree that stronger action is warranted.

On July 10, she posted:

To learn more and watch the disturbing footage, check out the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Come and take it, Sara gonzales, First amendment, Texas