What Would My Father Say to America?

By Katrina Lantos Swett
July 10, 2026

Like many of my fellow Americans, I have spent much of this year contemplating the meaning of America’s 250th birthday. I have participated in fantastic events to mark this momentous occasion, and I have read dozens of reflections on America that range from passionately patriotic to sharply critical and everything in between. Yet, out of everything I’ve seen or read, I am most moved by the words of my own late father, which I revisited just before the Fourth of July holiday last week.  

My father came to the United States out of the horrors of the Holocaust. He lost most of his family during the Nazi’s “Final Solution” in Hungary, and he only survived by escaping a forced labor camp and returning to his native Budapest, where he joined the underground resistance. After the war, he won a scholarship to study at the University of Washington and, with a grand total of $5 and a small piece of Hungarian salami in his pocket, he arrived at New York Harbor on Aug. 23, 1947. He wrote the following letter to his surviving relatives back in Hungary: 

“Upon seeing the Statue of Liberty, I felt that the gates of a new, free, more humane and joyous world were opening to me. I spent approximately two hours with the passport office and at 2:30 pm, finally I stepped onto the soil of America. No one who has not experienced it can understand the feeling of release and liberation which the first contact with this wonderful land engendered in me; to be in bodily contact with this ground was sheer joy. Everyone I met with seemed so friendly, so helpful and so generous.” 

His kind hosts took him on a nighttime tour of the city, and his wonder at the sights and the gifts he received is full of wide-eyed charm. 

“The night was like a dream. Millions of giant neon lights illuminated the streets and millions of well dressed happy people crowded the streets. It was hard to believe that there existed so many lucky people in the world. Then there were the theaters, the movies and the restaurants in unbelievable quantity and quality. I have never eaten so much food in my life, and I saw more and felt more joy than in all my previous life combined”. 

Over three decades later, my father, Tom Lantos, somewhat miraculously, would be elected to Congress. He was the only Holocaust survivor ever to achieve this distinction. In a fortuitous bit of foreshadowing, one of the first people he met upon arrival to the U.S. was a member of Congress. I smile every time I read his description of that encounter: 

“My first new acquaintance (besides the welcoming committee from B’nai B’rith) was a Congressman from New York. He asked me many questions and treated me with such respect and friendliness; further evidence of the warm-hearted friendliness of Americans, even of such an important member of the government.” 

As a first-generation American and the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, I have a particular brand of patriotism – the variety that is not only grateful for the many blessings of life in this country but also keenly aware of how different my story would have been if America had not opened her doors to my father, and then my mother, almost 80 years ago. 

 As I read the enthusiastic, grateful observations from a 19-year-old Hungarian Holocaust survivor who would go on to found the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and serve as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I find myself asking: What would Tom Lantos say to America at this memorable hinge of history? 

My father was certainly clear-eyed about our country’s many shortcomings and often spoke of the need, in his words, to “close the hypocrisy gap,” namely, the chasm between our magnificent founding ideals and the many ways we have fallen short as a nation. At this moment, he would be horrified by the normalization of antisemitism in our politics and the resurgence of white nationalism and other forms of hate in our society. He would lament the dearth of basic civility in our society and the unwillingness to engage constructively with those with whom we disagree. He would be baffled by the growing popularity of socialism among too many young Americans, and he would be deeply disturbed by signs of democratic backsliding.

Despite his alarm, I believe he would still tell his fellow Americans, those born in the USA and especially those lucky “Americans by choice,” that we are blessed beyond measure to be part of this extraordinary American quilt. He would tell us that we have a privilege and sacred responsibility to channel our gratitude for America into tireless, unceasing efforts to make her better, for our own families and for all citizens. Indeed, that is what he did in his own life. He did not merely build the American Dream for our family; he went into public service and for nearly three decades in Congress he worked to make the American Dream possible for all people. He even went beyond that and, as one of Congress’ most passionate and eloquent advocates for human rights, he worked to create a freer, more just world for everyone.  

In his last public statement before he succumbed to cancer, my father said, “It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust and a fighter in the anti-Nazi underground could have received an education, raised a family and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a Member of Congress. I will never fully be able to express my profoundly felt gratitude to this great country.”  

My father knew that it is important, even vital, to be grateful for what we have been given as citizens of this great country. But he also knew that gratitude without action, without applying ourselves to the ongoing work of this great American experiment, is just sentiment. As we move toward the next 250 years of America, I will often think of my father as a 19-year-old, newly arrived immigrant to the United States, and I will try to channel his sense of wonder and thankfulness. And I will also think of his example of throwing his whole self into the task of forming a more perfect union. I hope you will, too. 

Dr. Katrina Lantos is former chair of the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and president of the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice.

How Low Can She Go? As Prosecutors Lay Out Case Against Tyler Robinson, Candace Owens Offers to Help Defense

The preliminary hearing in the Tyler Robinson trial has been going on this week in a Utah courtroom. Robinson is accused of assassinating Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University (UVU) on September 10, 2025. Erika Kirk and Charlie Kirk’s parents, Kathryn and Robert, were able to face Robinson in court during the hearings. Throughout the week, the prosecution has laid out a very clear case that Tyler Robinson is the man responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk, including video and DNA evidence linking Robinson to the crime.

Robinson turned himself in to the authorities at 9 p.m. on September 11, 2025, a day after the shooting. Robinson was formally arrested at about 4 a.m. the next morning. Today, prosecutors also introduced a recording of an interview with Lance Twiggs, the ‘transgender’ man Robinson reportedly had a relationship with. In that interview, Twiggs allegedly told investigators that Robinson confessed to the murder of Charlie Kirk.

The preliminary hearing is scheduled to wrap up tomorrow, and then the judge will decide if there is enough evidence to warrant sending Robinson to trial, where prosecutors say they will push for the death penalty. So while we don’t yet know if Robinson will face trial, it seems highly likely.

That’s why it’s all the more appalling that Candace Owens seems to be doing her best to help the defense clear Robinson of this crime. For months, Owens has blamed everyone and anyone for the assassination except the one man towards whom all evidence points: Tyler Robinson.

Back in February, Owens claimed Robinson was arrested ‘without a shred of evidence.’

Now, she’s gone so far as to offer her services to the Robinson’s defense team.

Here’s what Owens’ post says (emphasis added):

Because as I demonstrated on my show, there were MANY young men that all woke up and decided to dress in maroon shirts and light shorts on the day of the Charlie’s assassination [sic]. The footage can be any one of these young men and in my opinion is likely multiple of them.

If Tyler Robinson’s defense would like to contact me — I’d be happy to supply them the folder of the maroon boys that I began archiving when I noticed the bizarre fashion trend.

I have thus far ID’d two of them, but will focus on IDing the rest of them when I am back on air.

I have maintained that the Feds had multiple decoy maroon boys on the ground that day. Without a clear image, they certainly cannot declare it is Tyler Robinson which is why all the Zionist influencers are hoping they can simply hypnotize the public into trusting blurry images and videos.

For such an ‘open and shut case’ they have thus far provided ZERO evidence of anything outside of a criminal government conspiracy, the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the JFK assassination.

The evidence, of course, contradicts Owens’ many claims. 

This includes sworn testimony from David Hull, the lead investigator, on July 6.

“We were able to establish that Mr. Robinson had been on campus approximately four times throughout the day. Twice before the shooting, at the time of the shooting, and then again after the shooting, later that evening and into the early hours of the 11th,” Hull said.

Everything has been a lie.

The defense fought hard to hide this video of Robinson on the UVU campus.

The video is damning.

Yet despite this mounting evidence, Candace Owens continues her months-long campaign to not just question the facts, but to actively assist the defense in securing Robinson’s acquittal. From archiving “maroon shirt” footage she claims shows federal decoys to publicly urging Robinson’s legal team to contact her for her compiled “evidence,” Owens has positioned herself as a de facto advocate for the accused killer, while dismissing DNA, videos, and admissions as part of a vast “criminal government conspiracy” reminiscent of the JFK assassination.

This is not skepticism, and it’s not ‘just asking questions.’ It is a deliberate effort to undermine justice for Charlie Kirk, his grieving widow Erika, and his family, who sat in that Utah courtroom facing the man charged with his murder. It’s also a deliberate effort to undermine and minimize violence against other conservatives.

While Robinson’s guilt will ultimately be decided in court, Owens’ crusade, carelessly built on shifting conspiracies, selective blindness to evidence, and offers of aid to the defense, reveals a disturbing and almost pathological desire to prioritize narrative over truth. In the end, Owens’ actions do more than defend the indefensible; they dishonor a man she claims was her ‘best friend,’ turning personal agenda into a public betrayal at the expense of a grieving family and a nation where conservatives face increased political violence.

Amy Curtis, Townhall

To Many Americans, Your Ideas Should Get You Killed

I can’t stand to watch coverage of the Charlie Kirk killer’s trial. He looks smug and complacent, not just because he’s a sociopath, but because he knows he has the academics, the corporate elites, the political-media class, the entertainment Establishment, and what passes today as civilization on his side. Because it’s Utah, and not New York, California, Illinois or Colorado, there’s a chance he will be convicted. But he knows that we know that Charlie Kirk’s tragic end will be America’s too, unless the decent forces of our lost civilization reassert themselves way, way, way more than they already have.

You don’t have to know or care much about Charlie Kirk’s specific ideas and attitudes to grasp that the stakes are very high. Charlie Kirk was murdered for his ideas alone, and according to the leftist perspective, this was OK if not admirable. This alone puts us one click above concentration camps. If Kirk’s killer were actually acquitted or given a light sentence, expect the concentration camps soon.

Put simply: It’s not good for freedom, truth and justice when the most evil persons alive are so smug and comfortable. And it’s bad when there’s any hint of friendliness to the idea that people deserve to be killed for their ideas, especially when those ideas, while controversial to some, are entirely peaceful. Get to know your leftist friends and family: they’re more on board with this than you may realize, and it’s truly chilling.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Communism & The U.S. Constitution

Increasingly, I think the best way to battle leftism is to defy it and isolate it. Red states should simply refuse to enforce national leftist laws or policies. After all, that’s how blue states and cities are handling ICE, DEI and everything else. They simply ignore Trump’s actions and do their own Communist, pro-criminal thing. We must fight them on the terms they, the Democrats, have created. Don’t try to tell me this will divide America and obliterate our Constitution–because the Democrats have already done that.

The other way to fight leftists is to isolate them. Rural, Republican and moderate counties in New York, Illinois, Washington state, Oregon, and California, etc. should do everything they can to isolate the super leftist cities. Do everything possible to make it harder for them to survive, try not to do business with them — just distance, disassociate, treat them as you would treat an enemy country (which they are, be real). Let them suffer the consequences of their own insane policies. It’s a fantasy to think they will reform or get better. Get to know a hard core leftist. They are not reasonable, and they are not your friends. If we let people like this determine the course of our whole nation, we will be living under a total dictatorship in 2-3 years. Mamdani is their direction. They’re not going away, and they will not be reforming. So why not prepare to break with them now, rather than a few more years down the road? Postponing the inevitable is foolish.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

WATCH: Tennessee Train Conductor Fired After Triggering Woke Passengers With Epic July 4 Message

A seasonal railway conductor for Tennessee’s Incline Railway at Lookout Mountain has been fired after making now-viral comments, wishing riders a happy Independence Day, which triggered some passengers.

The conductor, identified as Jack Peterson, is clearly fed up with mass migration policies that are ruining our country. He hilariously told passengers on the Fourth of July, “To the very, very few Americans in here, happy Independence Day.”

He continued, “To the rest of you, welcome to the greatest country on the face of the planet, and if you disagree, you can leave.”

It is unclear how many foreigners were on board the train.

The conductor was fired almost immediately after father Charles Scherer and son Nathan Scherer caught the moment on camera and promptly reported Peterson to the Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA), which operates the train.

Nathan Scherer described the comments as “disparaging remarks about foreigners” in an interview, adding, “Even if you were critical of the country, the idea that you have to leave if you have any complaints… the whole thing is weird to me.”

“He doesn’t really know who is American and who’s not just by the way they look, so that kind of floored us,” Nathan’s father, Charles, said. While discussing Peterson’s immediate firing on the same day as the incident, Charles said, “That made me feel really good about CARTA and about their responsiveness to this and believing it should have been handled.

Peterson declined to comment on the incident.

According to Fox News, CARTA Chief of Staff Scott Wilson told News 9, “I want to apologize directly to the passengers who experienced this, and to everyone who has seen the video and felt its sting. It should never have happened.”

“We have zero tolerance for language that demeans or excludes anyone who rides with us. For 131 years, the Incline Railway has welcomed visitors from Chattanooga and from around the world. Every passenger who boards our railway deserves to feel respected and welcome, and we are committed to making sure that is always the case,” Wilson added.

The Gateway Pundit ^ | July 8, 2026 | Jordan Conradson

The Politics of Ayatollah Khamenei’s Funeral

The funeral of Ayatollah Khamenei is the Islamic Republic’s biggest political ritual since the funeral of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 and one of the most consequential political events in the Islamic Republic’s history. Coming after the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, it marks both the end of one era and the beginning of another.

Every aspect of the funeral has been carefully choreographed. Its scale, symbolism, religious rituals, foreign attendance, and even the route of the procession communicate different messages to different audiences. Like other major state ceremonies in the Islamic Republic, the funeral serves not only to honor the dead but also to shape the political landscape for the living.

Domestically, the central message is continuity. The country’s Supreme Leader was killed in the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, yet the Islamic Republic seeks to demonstrate that its institutions remain intact, succession has taken place, and the state continues to function despite the gravest external challenge it has faced in decades. The funeral projects order rather than uncertainty, stability rather than crisis.

It is also a demonstration of resilience. By portraying Ayatollah Khamenei as a martyr who died during a foreign aggression, the leadership is framing the U.S.-Israel war on Iran as one of national resistance rather than mere survival. The message to supporters is that sacrifice has strengthened, not weakened, the Islamic Republic.

Religious Symbolism

Religiously, the funeral draws on the powerful symbolism of Shi’a mourning, reinforcing the close relationship between political authority and religious legitimacy. Its timing added another powerful layer of symbolism. Islamic tradition generally calls for burying the deceased as soon as possible, but the U.S.-Israel war on Iran delayed the funeral by weeks, allowing the leadership to transform it into a much larger political and religious event.

Held during Muharram, the holiest month of mourning in the Shi’a calendar, the ceremonies deliberately drew on themes of sacrifice, injustice, victimhood, and martyrdom that lie at the heart of Shi’a religious memory. Those themes were reinforced by the highly publicized presence of Ayatollah Khamenei’s family, including his young grandchild, connecting the family’s personal loss to the broader national narrative of war, resistance, and sacrifice.

Regional and Global Signals Regionally and internationally, the funeral also carried different messages. To supporters and allies, it reassured them that the Islamic Republic remained intact despite the war and the loss of its highest leader. To rivals, it signaled that Iran had absorbed a devastating blow without political collapse. To the United States and Israel, it sought to demonstrate that military pressure had not dismantled the Iranian state or fractured its governing institutions.

The attendance list itself offered a snapshot of Iran’s postwar geopolitical position. The presence of friendly governments and members of what Tehran calls the “Axis of Resistance” underscored the partnerships Iran considers strategically important after the war. Equally telling were the absences. Few European governments sent senior representatives, reflecting Tehran’s view that Europe had aligned politically with the United States and Israel during the conflict. Some Persian Gulf Arab states also kept their representation limited, illustrating the limits of regional rapprochement after a direct war. Attendance — and equally, absence — became a visible marker of Iran’s postwar diplomatic alignments.

The funeral’s regional dimension extended beyond diplomacy. The decision to take Ayatollah Khamenei’s funeral procession to Iraq before his burial linked Iran’s political leadership to the holy Shi’a cities of Najaf and Karbala, reinforcing both his religious stature and Iran’s enduring influence across the wider Shi’a world.

“The Islamic Republic’s unifying theme is that the U.S.-Israeli regime change war has failed. Domestically, they enjoy broad popular support and national unity. Militarily, they remain strong. Politically, they will continue to resist Western aggression, the MOU with Trump notwithstanding,” Nader Hashemi, Professor of Political Science at Georgetown University told CIP.

Perhaps the most striking image, however, was someone who never appeared. Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, remained out of public view throughout the ceremonies. Security concerns following the war, together with reported injuries sustained in the strike that killed Ayatollah Khamenei, and years of careful image management, likely contributed to his absence. Unlike Ayatollah Khomeini or Ayatollah Khamenei before him, he assumes leadership without decades of public visibility or a well-established political persona.

His absence highlights one of the defining challenges of the postwar transition: protecting the country’s highest authority while gradually building his public legitimacy. That balancing act may become one of the first major tests of the post-Ayatollah Khamenei era.

War, Society, and Domestic Politics The funeral also offered a window into how the U.S.-Israel war on Iran has reshaped Iranian society and politics, at least for now.

One of the war’s most immediate consequences has been a rally-around-the-flag effect. External military attack tends to strengthen national cohesion, and Iran has been no exception. For supporters of the Islamic Republic, the war reinforced long-held beliefs that the country faces an existential external threat and that resistance remains necessary. The funeral became an extension of that narrative, honoring not only Ayatollah Khamenei but also those killed in the war and presenting their deaths as sacrifices made in defense of the nation.

The impact, however, extends beyond the Islamic Republic’s traditional support base. Many Iranians who oppose the political system also opposed the U.S.-Israel war, viewing it as an attack on Iran rather than simply on its leadership. For them, nationalism and patriotism do not necessarily translate into support for the Islamic Republic. Rather, they reflect a broader attachment to Iran’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national dignity. A large funeral crowd, therefore, should not automatically be interpreted as broader political support for the state. It may equally reflect grief, religious conviction, patriotism, or rejection of foreign military intervention.

The war has also temporarily reshaped Iran’s domestic political landscape. External conflict naturally pushes internal divisions into the background as national security becomes the overriding concern. Political space has narrowed, security has tightened, and organized dissent has largely been pushed off the streets.

That should not be mistaken for the disappearance of public grievances. The economic hardships, political frustrations, social demands, and calls for greater freedoms that fueled repeated waves of protest over the past decade remain unresolved. They have not disappeared; they have simply become less visible during wartime. Once the immediate security environment recedes, many of those demands are likely to resurface.

The funeral therefore should not be read as evidence that Iran’s internal political debates have ended. Rather, it reflects a temporary shift in national priorities. History shows that societies under external attack often postpone internal confrontation until the immediate threat has passed, and Iran is unlikely to be an exception.

A Transition and an Uncertain Future The funeral also marks the beginning of a new political chapter. Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei inherits a country transformed by war, a region undergoing rapid geopolitical change, and a political system entering its first leadership transition in more than three decades. His leadership will be judged not only by how he preserves continuity but also by how he addresses the political, economic, and social challenges that long predate the war.

In the immediate aftermath of the conflict, the funeral appears to have achieved its principal objectives. It projected continuity after the loss of the country’s highest authority, reassured supporters, signaled resilience to adversaries, and reminded allies that Iran remains a central regional actor despite the U.S.-Israel war on Iran.

Whether those messages endure will depend less on the symbolism of the funeral than on what follows. As wartime emotions recede, Iran’s leadership will once again confront familiar challenges: rebuilding the economy, addressing public demands, navigating relations with the United States, maintaining regional deterrence, and establishing the authority of a new Supreme Leader.

The funeral closes one chapter in the history of the Islamic Republic. Whether the next chapter is defined by continuity, adaptation, or deeper transformation will depend not on the symbolism of the funeral, but on the choices the leadership makes after the mourning ends.

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY ^ | July 8, 2026 | Negar Mortazavi

Stephen King deletes post defending Platner

Author Stephen King deleted a post on social media defending Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner (D), who is facing widespread backlash after his former girlfriend accused him of rape.

King, a Maine resident, weighed in on a report from Politico published Monday that revealed the accusation from Jenny Racicot, Platner’s former girlfriend, who alleged Platner sexually assaulted her five years ago.

King wrote in a post on the social media platform X, which was later deleted: “Graham Platner may drop out. (I hope he doesn’t, but.) Meanwhile, the Abuser in Chief just keeps on keepin’ on,” appearing to compare the allegations against Platner to accusations previously made against President Trump.

He followed up with another post.

“Tell you what–if you knew the whole truth about everyone in the Senate and House of Reps, those chambers would be dead empty. Jesus said, ‘Let him without sin cast the first stone,’” he wrote.

Platner quickly denied the allegation in a video but added he would take time to reflect on his campaign and consider next steps. Prominent Democrats soon after urged him to end his Senate bid.

The posts garnered swift criticism online, with commentators bashing King for appearing to minimize the severity of the allegations against Platner.

Among the critics was columnist Jonah Goldberg, who wrote: “So because we don’t know about hypothetical rapey legislators we should forgive the ones we do know about.”

King attempted to clarify his position on Tuesday following the backlash.

“Not defending Grah, Platner. If he committed rape, he should bow out. Just making a comparison,” he wrote, following up with a post to correct his misspelling of “Graham.”

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) also walked back her online criticism of Platner’s accuser, deleting a post saying she should not turn “consensual sex” with Platner “into rape for politics with conflicting stories.”

Politico reported that Racicot met Platner on the dating app Bumble in 2019, and the two had been in an on-and-off relationship since.

Racicot told the outlet that in 2021, Platner drunkenly entered her home uninvited and sexually assaulted her. She said she did not come forward initially out of fear of retaliation. She also wanted a Democrat to win against incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) in November.

Politico corroborated her story with several people in whom she initially confided, including a former boyfriend and her therapist.

The allegation has rocked Platner’s campaign, which had already been riddled with a series of other scandals, including sexually explicit texts Platner sent to women while married.

After easily winning the Democratic primary, the populist oyster farmer was set to head to the general election to face off against Collins. But in light of the recent bombshell revelations, Platner has lost critical support from most of his party, with both state and national Democrats calling for Platner to drop out of the race.

Finia Swai

President Trump, Veto the Housing Bill!

 July 8, 2026 by Ann Coulter

Everyone was ready for a grand signing ceremony to mark the historic moment when President Trump put his name on the bipartisan bill, The 21st Century Road to Housing Act. It was to be a celebration of unity, a brief respite from the nation’s bitter divisions, Shangri-la in the capital city. Then, suddenly, the president decided not to sign it.

All I can say is: Thank you, Mr. President!!!

Apart from eliminating some burdensome federal regulations previously enacted by these morons (repealing almost anything passed by any Congress ever, for any reason, is a good idea) the main outcome of the law will be to destroy neighborhoods, while unjustly enriching well-heeled landlords of decrepit apartment buildings.

Specifically, the act expands Section 8 housing, a government program to move violent, gun-happy, drug-dealing welfare recipients from inner-city public housing units into previously safe neighborhoods. The theory is that if only criminals lived in nice middle-class areas, they’d get jobs and become productive members of society!

Prevented by their own ideology from criticizing welfare dependency, single motherhood, drug use or criminality, liberals blame dysfunctional behavior on… zip codes. Instead of addressing why people might not want to live in places where they get mugged, Congress decided to move the bad neighborhoods to them. Work ethic, orderliness, respect for the law — irrelevant! It’s location, location, location.

In a completely unexpected development, wherever Section 8 appears, crime skyrockets. The newcomers don’t get jobs, but they do get to live in nicer places and have access to a relatively more prosperous set of victims.

If you built a wall around voucher-enabled housing in any town, you’d cut violent crime by 50%. A black alderman in Chicago said the only time he was threatened by his black constituents was when they warned him against putting criminals in their neighborhoods with Section 8. It’s like injecting a virus into a community.

Ferguson, Mo., is an illustration of what happens when Section 8 housing comes to your town. Once a nice middle-class suburb for people fleeing crime in St. Louis, things changed after residents of inner-city projects began being funneled into “Housing Choice” apartments there.

The town’s most famous resident, Michael Brown, lived in Section 8 housing — and wasn’t it ennobling to see all his neighbors tell the God’s honest truth about how Officer Darren Wilson shot Brown in self-defense and didn’t make up a cock-and-bull story about Brown crying out, “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!”? (None of that happened. Even Obama’s Justice Department found they were lying.)

The New York Times seems to think that the high crime rate in Brown’s neighborhood was the result of some malevolent plot by white people to enforce segregation. As the Times reporter put it: “Can the barriers that keep blacks out of prosperous, mostly white communities be toppled? Data suggests that they often cannot.” Because, the paper sadly noted, “when you’re black and poor, freedom has its limits.”

Except Ferguson WAS a “prosperous, mostly white community.” Far from being “kept out,” poor black people were given government vouchers to move in.

And yet, for reasons entirely mysterious to the Times, crime exploded. It’s almost as if the crime rate was a result of the criminality of the people who were moved there.

The truth comes out in posts on an “Apartment Rating” website from residents of the exact Section 8 building where Brown lived, the Northwinds. For years, the complaints centered on inattentive landlords and shoddy maintenance. But as the landlord switched to mostly Section 8 housing, the comments were all about crime.

E.g.:

“It is not safe here! Shootings every weekend.”

“The crime is really bad. We have neighbors that stand around all day and sell dope.”

“I was not there 2 weeks and my car got broken in to. My home was next.”

“I had my home invaded 4 times in the past 16 months.”

“At least 50 units have been broken into this year.”

Section 8’s sole achievement has been to create one-building crime waves in formerly safe areas. So naturally, instead of ending this federally-funded Destroyer of Neighborhoods, Congress’s housing bill expands it.

Don’t think for a minute, oh the poor landlords. These are rich people being bailed out of bad real estate investments. With federal vouchers, they’re suddenly able to charge a thousand bucks in rent for apartments that would get $300 in a market setting. The voucher recipients don’t care. They’re not paying. We are. (Jared Kushner’s family has made millions in Section 8 housing.)

Slumlords offload crappy apartments at extravagant rents, and the people who pay the price are working and middle-class Americans, whose kids are offered up to the criminals moving in next door. Don’t worry — Section 8 won’t be coming to Chappaqua anytime soon. “Every town needs a ghetto” is for other people.

For the cherry on top, the program can’t be criticized because it involves race.

I know the GOP is running scared over the “affordability” crisis, but wrecking middle-class neighborhoods while showering taxpayer money on multimillionaire landlords may not be the populist solution they think it is.

This catastrophic bill becomes law on Friday if Trump doesn’t veto it first. He should hold a grand signing ceremony so we can gaze admiringly at him as he uses a Sharpie to scrawl, “VETOED!” all over it.

COPYRIGHT 2026 ANN COULTER

Trump Administration Targets Medicare Fraud After 7,100 Percent Surge in Transplant Claims

The Trump administration says it has uncovered a dramatic increase in Medicare claims for tissue and organ transplants, resulting in a broad crackdown on suspected fraud that officials say has already blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable payments.

Administration officials said Medicare claims for tissue and organ transplants, known as allografts, climbed from $200 million in 2019 to $14.4 billion in 2025—a 7,100 percent increase.

The surge led the White House Anti-Fraud Task Force, headed by Vice President JD Vance, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to intensify their review of claims. Since March, the agency has denied 96 percent of allograft claims identified during the review.

CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said the agency identified 4,200 potentially fraudulent allograft claims totaling $224 million through May.

“That’s a lot of money,” Oz said during a Wednesday news conference in Milwaukee. “And that bankrupts not just hospital systems and physician groups, but it causes major problems across the entire landscape.”

The agency also announced enforcement actions involving Durable Medical Equipment (DME) including wheelchairs, walkers, hospital beds and other medical equipment.

According to CMS, payments have been suspended to 102 suppliers, while billing privileges have been revoked for another 725 suppliers. The agency said those suppliers accounted for 8.6 percent of all Medicare-funded DME in 2025.

CMS officials reported they identified suspected fraud involving claims for equipment that was not medically necessary or ordered, equipment that was more expensive than prescribed, and equipment that was never delivered.

“In just six months, the task force has effectively wiped out Durable Medical Equipment fraud in America,” a spokesperson for Vance’s office said. “After the vice president and Dr. Oz announced a moratorium on new DME companies, paired with aggressive enforcement actions by DOJ and HHS, this kind of fraud has effectively ended.”

Oz said the administration’s efforts have already prevented significant losses.

“Thanks to the whole-of-government approach spearheaded by the White House Anti-Fraud Task Force, we stopped nearly $220 million in fraudulent skin substitute claims and suspended or revoked billing privileges for over 800 DME suppliers,” Oz told Fox News Digital. “We are keeping our promise to the American people: we will root out corruption, protect vulnerable patients, and hold every bad actor accountable.”

Oz also warned those engaged in health care fraud that the administration intends to continue its enforcement campaign.

“To anyone out there, and I’m talking to you if you’re a fraudster, for anyone out there who thinks they can get away by stealing from the American people, especially American patients, I’ve got a bit of advice for you: Do not walk away from this press conference. Don’t walk away from us. You start running because the vice president and this task force are coming after you,” Oz said.


Strengthening America’s Thread of Liberty

Ned Ryun has a new documentary that you should see.

The enemies must have a firm grasp of and appreciation for America’s founding principles.  In this regard, the more success that outright communists have in taking over the Democrat Party as part of their institutional conquest of the United States, the more committed patriotic Americans must become to the cause of defending our God-given rights and liberties.  As our enemies become more emboldened in their campaign to destroy America, we must find within ourselves the confidence to resist and persevere.

This is why Ryun’s Thread of Liberty is so timely.  It tells the story of America exceedingly well.  Whereas Barack Obama’s presidency rejected American Exceptionalism, introduced a cancerous self-hatred within the body politic, and provided cover for Islamic supremacists, Antifa domestic terrorists, and anti-American communists to run for political office on platforms openly calling for the destruction of our constitutional form of government, Ryun’s documentary shows just how remarkable America’s founding principles have always been.  Whereas race hucksters, such as Al Sharpton and Eric Holder, and instigators of racial hate hoaxes, such as the Ku Klux Klan-supporting Southern Poverty Law Center, pit Americans of different races against each other, encourage Americans to topple over statues of the Founding Fathers (because some might have owned slaves), and push for special preferences in college admissions and hiring decisions depending upon an applicant’s skin color, Ryun explains how the Civil War continued the American Revolution’s fight for human liberty, inalienable rights, and equality under the law.  Whereas leaders of the Democrat Party openly conspire to aid and abet illegal aliens in defiance of federal law, permit non-citizens to vote in elections, pack the Supreme Court with dyed-in-the-wool Marxist-socialists, and empower government bureaucrats to micromanage every detail of our lives, Ryun’s film shows how a century of regressive “progressivism” has instituted the “soft despotism” of “experts” who rule as cubicle kings and queens.

The Thread of Liberty does a tremendous job of defending the American Experiment and demonstrating how America’s founding principles have directly guided the country through its darkest times.  While the vast majority of Democrat voters have been indoctrinated to despise their country, dismiss the Founding Fathers as racists, and reject the constitutional safeguards set up to protect our God-given rights, Ryun’s documentary shows how the Founders’ vision informed the Emancipation Proclamation, the Reconstruction Amendments, and the mid-twentieth-century’s Civil Rights Movement.  Those who wish to destroy America use our nation’s worst conflicts as a means to delegitimize both the spirit and legal framework of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, while those very documents embody the quintessential American virtues that have continued to lead us down the path toward freedom, security, and prosperity.

To be sure, the thread that connects the generation of our Founding Fathers with our own is worn and unraveling.  There is a real fear today that we might lose our country and, therefore, lose our liberty.  How can we preserve a constitutional republic that has already abandoned Madison’s system of checks and balances among coequal branches of government in favor of a sprawling administrative Deep State whose members govern despotically and cannot be voted out of permanent bureaucratic office?  How can we protect our inalienable, God-given rights when most elected officials reject the authority of God and insist that government is the source of all rights?  How can we speak and pray as free people when the Intelligence Community conspires with social media companies to censor our speech and lawmakers empower prosecutors to persecute people of faith for their religious beliefs?  How can we enjoy our liberty in peace and use our private property as we wish when a century of jurisprudence has enabled presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to erect an administrative state Leviathan that claims unmitigated authority to regulate every element of our lives?  Is there anything remaining of the thread of liberty, or are we unmoored from our country’s founding principles and drifting into a morass of administrative state tyranny?

In asking these questions, Ryun’s documentary serves as a jolt of electricity in the two-hundred-fiftieth year of the American Experiment.  One of the things that his film does so well is to show the viewer that Americans have stepped up to the abyss and nearly lost their country many times before.  The War for American Independence, the interstate squabbles that arose during the uncertainty of the Articles of Confederation, the Industrial Revolution, the Civil War, the Reconstruction era, the flight from farms to factories, Jim Crow laws, two world wars, the disastrous growth of the unconstitutional administrative state — every decade of the past two and a half centuries has pulled at that thread of liberty and threatened to separate us from our American inheritance. 

To be sure, the thread that connects the generation of our Founding Fathers with our own is worn and unraveling.  There is a real fear today that we might lose our country and, therefore, lose our liberty.  How can we preserve a constitutional republic that has already abandoned Madison’s system of checks and balances among coequal branches of government in favor of a sprawling administrative Deep State whose members govern despotically and cannot be voted out of permanent bureaucratic office?  How can we protect our inalienable, God-given rights when most elected officials reject the authority of God and insist that government is the source of all rights?  How can we speak and pray as free people when the Intelligence Community conspires with social media companies to censor our speech and lawmakers empower prosecutors to persecute people of faith for their religious beliefs?  How can we enjoy our liberty in peace and use our private property as we wish when a century of jurisprudence has enabled presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to erect an administrative state Leviathan that claims unmitigated authority to regulate every element of our lives?  Is there anything remaining of the thread of liberty, or are we unmoored from our country’s founding principles and drifting into a morass of administrative state tyranny?

In asking these questions, Ryun’s documentary serves as a jolt of electricity in the two-hundred-fiftieth year of the American Experiment.  One of the things that his film does so well is to show the viewer that Americans have stepped up to the abyss and nearly lost their country many times before.  The War for American Independence, the interstate squabbles that arose during the uncertainty of the Articles of Confederation, the Industrial Revolution, the Civil War, the Reconstruction era, the flight from farms to factories, Jim Crow laws, two world wars, the disastrous growth of the unconstitutional administrative state — every decade of the past two and a half centuries has pulled at that thread of liberty and threatened to separate us from our American inheritance. 

Ryun also points us to the prescriptive remedy by highlighting Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic work, Democracy in America.  What the French political philosopher, historian, and anthropologist recognized in the United States of the 1830s was a country whose people governed themselves effectively because they valued Christian virtue, civic organizations, and church fellowship over the machinery of government.  Self-confident, self-sufficient, moral people who cherish their liberty more than the empty promises of politicians are the essential bulwark against tyranny and the perpetual guarantors of personal freedom. 

America’s survival depends upon a return to the nuclear family, a renewed sense of Christian duty, reinvigorated patriotism, and the replacement of bureaucratic “experts” with “We the People.”  That’s the “covenant” connecting Americans today with those who first secured our liberties two and a half centuries ago.  That’s the thread of liberty that we must make strong once again.