Issues & Insights ^ | July 10, 2026 | I & I Editorial Board

“Michael, we’re bigger than U.S. Steel.” — Hyman Roth, “The Godfather Part II“

======================================================================================

The mobsters in “The Godfather” set their sights way too low. If they really wanted to make it big time, they should have targeted federal entitlement programs instead of gamblers and drug addicts. Not only does it pay better, but you can count on one political party to look the other way.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) figures that fraudsters make off with more than $500 billion of federal taxpayer money a year, plus another $184 billion in “improper payments.”

That isn’t just bigger than U.S. Steel. That’s five times as big as the entire steel industry.

Every day, it seems, there are reports of fraud, most of it involving federal entitlement programs. Everyone knows about the massive fraud uncovered in Minnesota, Ohio, and California. But the stories just keep trickling in.

* Just last month, the Justice Department charged 455 defendants for what amounts to $6.5 billion in alleged false medical claims.

* Around the same time, Herbert Leon Kimble was arrested in the Philippines on charges that he ran a $1.2 billion Medicare fraud conspiracy.

* Investigators in Alaska charged 15 people with close to $2 million in Medicaid fraud.

* A Brooklyn, N.Y., retailer has been charged with stealing more than $640,000 in food-stamp benefits from people in Ohio.

The truth is, we have no idea how much fraud there is. The GAO estimate is more of a guesstimate than a reliable figure, and the top number on its range is probably too low, given the lackadaisical efforts states put into fighting fraud. In New Mexico, for example, a state with the highest share of people on food stamps, a legislative report found that the state followed up only 3% of the tips it received about fraud.

But even if the GAO is right, the amount of fraud rivals the output of several major U.S. industries, as a new paper from the Advancing American Freedom Foundation shows in an eye-opening chart.

Given that more than $4 trillion of the federal government’s $7.4 trillion budget is in the form of transfer payments, the scale of fraud shouldn’t be surprising.

What is surprising is how determined Democrats are to keep the fraud going.

When evidence of widespread fraud emerged in California and Minnesota, for example, the governors of both states attacked the Trump administration for pointing it out, while pretending that they are dealing with the issue.

When Trump moved to deny Medicaid funds to states rife with fraud, “Democrats slammed the crusade as a smokescreen for … Trump’s war against blue states, and an attempt to divert attention from GOP cuts to healthcare programs.”

When Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins asked states to turn over food stamp enrollment data and offered to partner with them to root out fraud, 21 Democrat-controlled states refused to do so on spurious privacy grounds.

When Republicans in New Mexico pointed out that the Democrat-controlled state “rarely verifies, seldom audits, and barely investigates fraud” in its food stamp program, Democrats responded that fighting fraud threatened to “restrict eligibility.”

And, as we noted back in December, Democrats attacked DOGE — which was a modest attempt to find waste, fraud, and abuse in federal agencies — with such ferocity that it sparked violent protests.

The problem is that, even without opposition from Democrats, the government’s anti-fraud efforts are like bailing out a sinking ship with a spoon. There’s too much money available to fraudsters. There are way too many holes in the programs that make them easy to rip off. And catching the thieves takes time and effort.

Rachel Greszler, who authored the Advancing American Freedom report, says that Congress has the opportunity this year to seal the gaps by including several provisions in a new reconciliation bill.

“A comprehensive package built around full benefit reporting, eligibility verification, accurate measurement, mandatory cooperation, and skin-in-the-game accountability would help protect taxpayers, preserve benefits for those truly in need, and reduce the hundreds of billions of dollars currently lost to waste, fraud, and abuse each year.”

The only people who could be opposed to these commonsense reforms are the criminals and their patrons in the Democratic Party.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

Taliban authorities in Afghanistan have ordered government employees, judges, police and members of the military to stop using smartphones under a directive that took effect June 16. The order threatens violators with confiscation, destruction of their devices and punishment (which are not specified).

The use of what are known as feature phones — with calling and texting options but no touch screen and no photo or recording capabilities — is permitted.

The ban does not yet apply to private phone ownership by ordinary Afghan civilians. But in some provinces, restrictions have already moved beyond government offices and into hospitals, schools and universities, raising fears that the policy could become an early test for broader limits on public smartphone use.

The restrictions began as a verbal order from Taliban supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada and were later formalized in a military court directive circulated to court heads, police commanders and intelligence chiefs across the country’s eight administrative zones. The directive says anyone caught using a smartphone will have the device smashed and face “legal and sharia punishment.” Exemptions require a written decree from Akhundzada himself. A separate court order covers “all officials of the military and civilian institutions, including judges.”

The Taliban have also created monitoring lists recording employees’ names, positions, workplaces, mobile carriers and phone numbers. Security officials have instructed members to destroy their own smartphones and submit proof on a designated form.

At Kabul University, the leadership council ordered a complete smartphone ban for professors, staff and students effective June 21. The decision was announced at an academic council meeting where members were not permitted to ask questions. At Herat University, notices posted at the entrance warn that no one may enter with a smartphone, and the restriction extends into student dormitories, where Wi-Fi service has also been suspended. In Baghlan province, students carrying smartphones have been turned away at the university gate.

In Kandahar, the provincial Education Department said its own ban on students and teachers was rooted in a “sharia perspective” and warned that smartphones risked “the destruction of the future generation.” The Taliban’s higher education minister has called smartphones “one of the three main enemies of Muslims” and last October restricted their use on university premises to only the most senior administrators.

The timing of the order followed protests in Herat in early June, after Taliban forces arrested women and girls accused of “improper hijab” — not meeting the dress code of covering the face and body in the prescribed manner and not wearing makeup. Witnesses said Taliban forces opened fire on demonstrators, killing at least one person. Video of the shooting spread online before the Taliban could contain it.

The Taliban administration did not respond to a request for comment.

Fatima Faizi, NPR

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.

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.’

Candace Owens in February: “They’ve got Tyler Robinson WITHOUT A SHRED of evidence. They’re the ones going off vibes and a dream.”

As everyone’s timelines fills up with evidence of Tyler Robinson being Charlie Kirk’s killer.

This should be the week Candace Owens’ entire grift dies.

pic.twitter.com/CtCVGukURU— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) July 8, 2026

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

🇺🇸Candace Owens is publicly urging Tyler Robinson’s defense team to contact her as the preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk assassination case gets underway.

Owens has repeatedly told her audience she believes Robinson is innocent and says she wants to help his defense.

Her comments have sparked fierce backlash online, with critics accusing her of interfering in a high-profile criminal case and calling for YouTube to investigate her platform activity.

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. 

Candace Owens is now offering to help Tyler Robinson’s defense team! We can all agree that she’s a monster, but the real dirtbags are Charlie’s “friends” like Tucker, Megyn Kelly and Jack Posobiec who refused to call her out and come to his wife’s defense after Charlie’s death

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

🚨Candace Owens’ conspiracy slop is IMMEDIATELY EXPOSED on Day 1 of Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing.

Candace Owens, repeatedly the last nine months: “Tyler Robinson has never even set foot on UVU’s campus.”

VS.

Lead investigator, under oath today: “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.”

pic.twitter.com/BynGLsHeJT— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) July 7, 2026

“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.

Reminder that Candace Owens has repeatedly claimed Tyler Robinson was never even on campus that day (she just repeated this on the Shawn Ryan podcast)…

Everything she has said about this case has been a lie. https://t.co/wovhAx0EOY— AG (@AGHamilton29) July 6, 2026

Everything has been a lie.

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

The video compilation (exhibit 12.4) of Tyler Robinson visiting UVU campus four times on 9/10 (the last visit stretching into the early morning hours of 9/11) will be submitted as evidence and broadcast to the media.

Here’s the video.

When you watch it, you’ll understand why the defense fought so hard against allowing it to be seen by the public.

pic.twitter.com/niPw0Nbcdj— Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet) July 7, 2026

The video is damning.

“If Tyler Robinson’s defense would like to contact me…”

Candace Owens is not only tripling down on her insane conspiracy theories that Tyler Robinson didn’t kill “her best friend” Charlie Kirk, but now she’s begging for his defense team to use her material to free the alleged… https://t.co/BTo9de8OzW— Joel M. Petlin (@Joelmpetlin) July 9, 2026

-Tyler’s mom: “Tyler did it.”
-Tyler’s dad: “Tyler did it.”
-Tyler’s boyfriend: “Tyler did it.”
-Law enforcement: “Tyler did it.”
-The evidence: “Tyler did it.”
-Tyler: “I did it.”

Candace Owens: “No you didn’t.” pic.twitter.com/65UpvAdm2v— Trumps Nephew (@ForgiatoBlow47) July 9, 2026

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

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

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

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 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

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

• Column

 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