9.The Minnesota Meltdown: Ilhan Omar’s Voters Under Scrutiny as Massive Fraud Exposes Terror Funding Links
Posted November 25, 2025
The Minnesota Meltdown: Ilhan Omar’s Voters Under Scrutiny as Massive Fraud Exposes Terror Funding Links
A massive political and humanitarian crisis is unfolding in Minnesota, driven by explosive allegations of widespread welfare fraud within the state’s Somali community. The situation escalated dramatically after President Donald Trump announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for all Somalis in the state, citing corruption, gang activity, and the siphoning of millions in taxpayer dollars to foreign terrorist organizations.
The scandal has placed Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who represents a district with a large Somali population, in a precarious position. While many accusations remain subject to ongoing investigation, detailed reports suggest that Minnesota taxpayers are unknowingly funding the Al-Qaeda-linked terror group
Al-Shabaab through fraudulent government programs.
I. The President’s Directive and the TPS Fallout
The controversy was thrust into the national spotlight when President Trump issued a severe executive order regarding the Somali population in Minnesota.
In a Truth Social post, President Trump stated:
“Minnesota under Governor [Tim] Walz is a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity… I am as president of the United States hereby terminating and effective immediately the temporary protected status, the TPS program for Somalis in Minnesota. Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of the great state and billions of dollars are missing.
Send them back to where they came from. It’s over.“
The termination of TPS—a status granted to eligible nationals of certain countries who are temporarily unable to return safely—for this population group is a drastic measure. It has immediate, life-altering consequences for potentially thousands of individuals who now face deportation.
The directive immediately triggered strong reactions, with some calling the President racist for “targeting Somalis,” while others argued he was taking necessary action against documented criminal activity ignored by local leadership.
II. The Anatomy of the Fraud: HSS and Autism Scams
The financial and security crisis is linked to two major government programs, both of which have seen costs explode in recent years under questionable circumstances.
1. The Housing Stabilization Services (HSS) Scam
The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) oversees the HSS program, which is designed to be a lifeline for people with disabilities, including those with substance use disorder, to find and maintain housing.
Cost Explosion: HSS billing has surged to nearly $250 million since the program started in 2020. Just five years ago, the program cost $2.6 million. By 2024, costs are projected to be around
$122 million annually—a staggering increase that suggests widespread exploitation.
Fraud Allegations: Investigations have uncovered allegations of fraud, forged signatures, and fraudulent billing to Medicaid for services that were never rendered. Victims, such as Steven Smith, have reported finding out that human services companies claimed to have helped them find housing and provided thousands of dollars in services, despite the victims never meeting the providers.
2. The Autism Claim Fraud
A second, more alarming scheme involves the state’s federally funded autism program.
Recruitment for Fraud: Several individuals, allegedly members of the Somali community, are accused of recruiting families and convincing them to get their children diagnosed as autistic, regardless of the child’s actual condition.
Financial Surge: As a result, autism claims to Medicaid surged, jumping from $3 million in 2018 to over $400 million by 2023. The number of autism providers in the state jumped from 41 to 328 in just five years, indicating a rapid influx of fraudulent operations designed to exploit the system.
III. Funding Terror: The Al-Shabaab Connection
The most explosive finding comes from reports by the City Journal, which connects the Minnesota fraud rings to international terrorism.
The reports allege that the Somali fraud rings are sending a massive amount of money back to Somalia through various means, including
Hala transfers. This practice leverages the significant amount of remittances sent abroad:
Somalia Remittances: Remittances from abroad total $1.7 billion, which is more than the entire budget of the Somali government.
Terror Link: Most alarmingly, the money funneled through money traders and Hala transfers is alleged to end up in the hands of the Al-Qaeda-linked Islamic terror group Al-Shabaab.
The conclusion drawn by critics is stark:
Minnesota taxpayers are unknowingly funneling money through fraudulent autism and welfare claims back to Somalia, where that money lands in the accounts of Al-Shabaab.
This direct link between state welfare programs and terrorism funding is cited as the primary national security justification for Trump’s TPS termination.
IV. The Political Accountability Crisis
The crisis has led to calls for the immediate resignation of Minnesota’s Governor,
Tim Walz. Taxpayers and critics argue that Walz has “absolutely failed this state on almost every single level” by allowing this fraud to proliferate unchecked.
Fiscal Failure: Critics point to a Minnesota Chamber of Commerce report showing the state is “failing on every single economic measure” between 2019 and 2024.
Moral Failure: The failure to prevent the fraud, which now links state funds to terrorism, is considered a profound moral and governmental collapse. The sentiment among some residents, even Democrats, is that Walz should step down immediately for “failing the people of Minnesota.”
The controversy also directly implicates Ilhan Omar, whose political base is the community under scrutiny. While there is no direct evidence linking Omar to the fraud, the actions of a concentrated group of her voters—accused of massive federal theft and funneling money to a known terrorist group—significantly damages her standing and lends weight to the claims that she is more loyal to Somalia than to the United States.
The current situation is defined by a refusal among local leaders to address the fraud, driven, critics argue, by a fear of being “called racist” for pointing out the criminal activity. Trump’s intervention, regardless of its political motivation, forces the issue of accountability that local authorities allegedly ignored for too long.
The immediate consequence of the TPS termination is a wave of deportations that will reshape the demographics and political landscape of Omar’s district, signaling a massive legal and political escalation of the Minnesota Meltdown.
This prediction was made by Paul Harvey in 1965, Now listen to His Terrifying Words
This prediction was made by Paul Harvey in 1965, Now listen to His Terrifying Words
In the long, hot summers of the 1970s, a small transistor radio was my constant companion while working the fields with my father. Hours of hauling and stacking hay would pause at midday, when I’d park the tractor under a shady tree, unwrap my lunch, and tune in to Paul Harvey. His distinctive voice, rich with calm authority, seemed to cut through the noise of the world. Even now, the sound of his broadcasts transports me back to those days—days when my parents, my brother, my grandmothers, and my aunts and uncles were still alive and gathered often. Nostalgia reminds me how much I long for those simpler moments.
Paul Harvey wasn’t just a radio man; he was a national institution. From 1952 through 2008, his voice reached as many as 24 million people every week. His “Paul Harvey News” aired on 1,200 radio stations, 400 Armed Forces Network stations, and appeared in 300 newspapers. His signature program, The Rest of the Story, became a cultural touchstone. Listeners tuned in for more than headlines—they tuned in for the perspective, wisdom, and reflective pause he gave them in the middle of hectic lives. Harvey’s style wasn’t just informative; it was reassuring. He reminded people that stories could have meaning beyond the facts. For a few minutes, his storytelling could challenge you, comfort you, or change the way you thought.
Generations of Americans grew up with him. For many, Harvey was as familiar as family, a trusted presence whose cadence and phrasing made the world feel smaller and more comprehensible. His gift wasn’t just in delivering news; it was in making you think. He asked his audience, often without saying it directly, to consider what mattered most in life. That quality of reflection feels increasingly rare in today’s constant stream of digital noise.
What made Harvey even more fascinating was his willingness to write and speak pieces that cut deeper than daily headlines. Long before his television career, he wrote essays that he would revise and return to over the years, sharpening their edge as the world changed. One of those works became especially famous: a speech he adapted multiple times, sometimes referred to as “If I Were the Devil.” Whether you interpret it literally, metaphorically, or prophetically, the piece resonates because it captures anxieties about culture, morality, and the future of society. When Harvey read the 1996 version on air, many listeners were startled at how accurately his words seemed to predict the path the country was taking. Today, nearly three decades later, his observations still spark debate and reflection.
Listening to that recording now is an unsettling experience. Some of his “predictions” feel eerily on point, echoing challenges we still wrestle with: social division, moral confusion, and the loss of shared values. Harvey’s delivery, calm but firm, gives his words weight. He never shouted, never sensationalized, but he left his audience thinking hard about what kind of world they were building.
Yet for all the seriousness of his insights, Harvey also offered reassurance. He often reminded listeners to place their trust in God during times of trial. Faith, for him, was the anchor. Millions were moved by his famous “Letter From God” broadcast, a meditation on purpose and work. In that piece, Harvey painted a vivid picture of the farmer as the backbone of society. “God gazed down on his intended paradise on the eighth day and said, ‘I need a caretaker.’ So God created a farmer.” With those words, he captured the dignity of hard labor, the connection between land and people, and the sacred responsibility of stewardship.
That essay lived on long after Harvey first read it. In fact, decades later, Ram Trucks used his “God Made a Farmer” broadcast as the centerpiece of a Super Bowl commercial. The combination of Harvey’s timeless narration with striking visual imagery made it one of the most memorable ads in recent memory, introducing his words to a new generation.
Paul Harvey’s greatness wasn’t in being perfect or universally agreed with. It was in being trustworthy. Audiences knew that when he spoke, it came from a place of conviction and sincerity. He respected his listeners enough to challenge them, and in return they respected him enough to listen closely.
Looking back now, I realize why his voice mattered so much to me and millions of others. He carved out space for reflection in a world that rarely slows down. He reminded us that news wasn’t just about information—it was about values, meaning, and how we choose to live.
Today, as we navigate uncertain and divisive times, Harvey’s words remain relevant. Whether through his predictions, his parables, or his simple reminder to trust in God, he gave us tools to think more deeply about life and society. For those of us who grew up listening under the summer sun, his broadcasts are more than memories; they are lessons etched into our way of seeing the world.
Paul Harvey has been gone since 2009, but the legacy of his voice still lingers. He was a storyteller, a teacher, and in many ways, a moral compass. And even now, when his words resurface, they remind us that we could use more moments of stillness, more listening, and more reflection.
Because as Harvey might say: now you know the rest of the story.
b59.Trump Calls For Ilhan Omar Impeachment After Failed Censure Resolution
President Donald Trump ignited a new political storm when he declared that Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota should be impeached from Congress, a statement made after a Republican-led censure resolution against her failed.
Trump, speaking aboard Air Force One, escalated his remarks by calling Omar “scum” and repeating unsubstantiated allegations that she had once married her brother to gain U.S. citizenship.
The episode has once again brought Omar into the center of heated national debate, highlighting both Trump’s continued influence in Republican politics and the persistent controversies surrounding the congresswoman.
Trump’s latest broadside came while traveling, when he was asked about the censure resolution against Omar. The measure, led by Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, sought to formally condemn Omar over comments she made about conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
The resolution, however, failed in the House after several Republicans defected. Some members were reportedly swayed by negotiations that required them to abandon a separate censure resolution against Rep. Cory Mills of Florida.
For Trump, the failed resolution was not enough. Speaking directly to reporters, he said Omar should face an even harsher penalty.
“I think she should be impeached. I think she’s terrible,” Trump declared. He then acknowledged his own history, referencing the two impeachments he faced during his presidency. “She should be impeached, and it should happen fast.”
These remarks quickly spread across political media, sparking intense reactions from allies and critics alike.
Not content with his comments aboard Air Force One, Trump took to Truth Social, his social media platform, to unleash a series of attacks against Omar.
In one post, he disparaged Somalia, Omar’s country of birth, calling it one of the “world’s most corrupt countries” and accusing its government of being riddled with bribery, embezzlement, and dysfunction.
“All of this, and Ilhan Omar tells us how to run America!” Trump wrote. “P.S. Wasn’t she the one that married her brother in order to gain Citizenship??? What SCUM we have in our Country, telling us what to do, and how to do it.”
The comments were inflammatory, drawing widespread attention not only for their language but also for reviving a claim about Omar that has circulated in conservative circles for years.
The allegation that Omar married her brother to gain citizenship has been a persistent narrative, frequently repeated by critics but never conclusively proven.
Multiple fact-checks have investigated the claim, with outlets examining marriage records, immigration timelines, and family histories. While inconsistencies in documents and explanations have fueled suspicion, no conclusive evidence has ever substantiated the claim.
Omar herself has denied the allegations, dismissing them as conspiracy theories rooted in racism and Islamophobia. Yet Trump’s decision to amplify the narrative once again ensures that it remains a point of political contention, regardless of the lack of definitive proof.
Beyond the personal attacks, Trump’s demand that Omar be impeached raised constitutional questions. The U.S. Constitution lays out the impeachment process for presidents, vice presidents, and federal judges, but it does not provide for the impeachment of sitting members of Congress.
Instead, the Constitution grants each chamber the authority to discipline its own members, including the power to expel with a two-thirds majority vote.
That threshold is a high bar. Republicans currently lack the two-thirds majority in the House necessary to expel Omar, and Democrats are unlikely to join such an effort.
This means that while Trump’s call for impeachment grabbed headlines, the practical reality is that Omar’s removal would require a rare and unlikely bipartisan consensus.
The last expulsion from Congress took place in late 2023, when former New York Republican Rep. George Santos was removed from office following a series of ethics scandals and criminal charges. Santos, now serving a prison sentence, became one of only a handful of lawmakers in U.S. history to be expelled.
Prior to Santos, expulsions were rare and typically tied to cases of treason or severe corruption. The fact that Trump invoked impeachment—a process not applicable to members of Congress—highlights both the extraordinary rhetoric of the moment and the unlikelihood of such a measure succeeding against Omar.
At the time of Trump’s remarks, Omar had not issued an immediate statement, but her past responses suggest she would likely frame the attacks as part of a pattern of harassment.
In previous instances, she has characterized Trump’s rhetoric as dangerous and Islamophobic, pointing to the risks it poses for her and her family.
Omar has long been a polarizing figure in U.S. politics. As one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, and a member of the progressive “Squad,” she has attracted both fervent support and fierce opposition.
Her criticism of U.S. foreign policy, support for Palestinian rights, and willingness to challenge party leadership have made her a lightning rod for controversy.
Trump’s comments about Omar reflect broader dynamics within the Republican Party. For many of his supporters, Omar represents everything they oppose in Democratic politics: progressive ideology, vocal criticism of U.S. institutions, and identity as an immigrant and Muslim woman.
By targeting her, Trump galvanizes his base while keeping attention on cultural and political divides.
For Democrats, Trump’s attacks reinforce concerns about his rhetoric and its impact on American democracy. Omar’s defenders argue that repeated personal attacks, especially those invoking conspiracy theories, contribute to a toxic political environment and put lawmakers at risk of threats and violence.
The failed censure resolution underscores the challenges of disciplining members of Congress in today’s polarized climate. Censure is a formal statement of disapproval but carries no practical penalties. It is often used to signal political disagreement rather than enforce consequences.
In Omar’s case, the resolution targeted remarks she had made about Charlie Kirk, but its failure highlights the limits of partisan efforts when members calculate the broader political implications.
For some Republicans, pursuing Omar too aggressively risked overshadowing their own legislative agenda or alienating moderate voters.
Observers note that Trump’s decision to attack Omar so forcefully fits into a broader strategy as he seeks to maintain dominance within the Republican Party.
By singling out high-profile Democratic figures, particularly those who represent progressive values, he positions himself as a defender of conservative America.
The choice of words—calling Omar “scum” and reviving debunked claims—also reflects Trump’s style of political communication. He often uses inflammatory language to command media attention, knowing that the controversy itself keeps him in the spotlight.
For his supporters, such bluntness is a sign of authenticity; for his critics, it is a dangerous erosion of political discourse.
Trump’s disparagement of Somalia adds an international layer to the controversy. By attacking Omar’s country of origin, he reignited criticism of his past comments about immigrants and developing nations.
Omar’s supporters argue that such rhetoric perpetuates xenophobia and undermines America’s role as a diverse democracy.
For Somalia, already struggling with political instability and corruption, Trump’s remarks risk reinforcing negative stereotypes. While his words may resonate with segments of the U.S. electorate, they also fuel resentment among immigrant communities who feel unfairly targeted.
The clash between Trump and Omar also raises questions about the future of congressional discipline. As political battles become more personal and public, tools like censure and expulsion are increasingly viewed through partisan lenses.
The idea of impeaching a member of Congress—constitutionally impossible—illustrates how rhetoric can outpace reality in the heat of political conflict.
Some lawmakers worry that constant threats of censure or removal undermine the seriousness of congressional accountability. If every controversial statement becomes grounds for disciplinary action, the process risks losing credibility.
Yet, ignoring such controversies also carries risks, particularly when inflammatory rhetoric fuels division.
For now, Omar remains in office, and the failed censure resolution ensures she will continue to serve without formal reprimand. Trump’s attacks, however, guarantee that she remains in the political spotlight.
With the next election cycle looming, both Democrats and Republicans are likely to use the controversy to energize their respective bases.
For Democrats, Omar’s resilience against repeated attacks may become a symbol of defiance in the face of extremism. For Republicans, her polarizing positions and controversies provide a convenient target.
As for Trump, his ability to dominate headlines with a few remarks demonstrates the enduring power of his voice in American politics. Whether or not his call for Omar’s impeachment gains traction, the attention it generated reinforces his role as a central figure shaping political discourse.
Trump’s demand that Ilhan Omar be impeached from Congress, coupled with his inflammatory remarks on Air Force One and Truth Social, created another flashpoint in an already volatile political landscape.
While constitutional realities make impeachment impossible, the rhetoric itself reveals much about the current state of American politics: deeply polarized, fueled by personal attacks, and shaped by media amplification.
For Omar, the controversy is both a burden and an opportunity—an ongoing challenge to her safety and credibility, but also a chance to galvanize supporters who see her as a target of unfair attacks.
For Trump, it is another example of his strategy to dominate the conversation, rally his base, and frame the political debate on his terms.
The episode underscores the fragility of political discourse in America today. In an environment where accusations can overshadow facts and rhetoric can outpace constitutional reality, the stakes remain high for both leaders and the public they serve.
Erika Kirk seen for the first time since her husband’s tragic death
Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, returned to his home state of Arizona on Thursday, marking a solemn moment in the wake of his tragic death. Kirk, who was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University, was honored with a final flight aboard Air Force Two, reflecting the impact he had on friends, colleagues, and the nation.
Vice President JD Vance, a close friend of Kirk’s, shared heartfelt reflections on X, highlighting the personal and professional bond they shared. Vance remembered Kirk as thoughtful, generous, and faithful, a man who inspired trust, mentored others, and championed ideas with passion. He praised Kirk’s devotion to
family, his deep Christian faith, and his tireless commitment to uplifting those around him.
As the plane touched down in Phoenix, a poignant scene unfolded. Kirk’s widow, Erika Frantzve, stepped off alongside Second Lady Usha Vance. Dressed in black and wearing sunglasses, the two women held hands in a quiet, comforting gesture. Erika, 36, kept her gaze down, gripping a rosary tightly as she was guided to the tarmac—a moving display of resilience and faith in the face of heartbreaking loss.
Also present were Kirk’s two young children and his parents. National Guard members carried Kirk’s mahogany casket on and off the plane, a solemn tribute to the conservative voice whose life was cut tragically short. Erika’s quiet strength, bolstered by her faith, resonated with viewers, symbolizing hope and endurance amid unimaginable grief.
Jack Posobiec, a contributor to Turning Point USA, described Erika as “unbelievably strong” and a “prayer warrior,” noting that her devotion and reliance on faith guide her every day. He said, “When you see the cameras turn off, they immediately return to faith. That strength comes from heaven.”
Erika, crowned Miss Arizona in 2012, married Charlie Kirk in 2021, and together they had two young children. Their family, along with friends and colleagues, continues to navigate this profound loss while honoring Kirk’s legacy of service and influence.
President Donald Trump, who spoke with Erika following the tragedy, shared his condolences and confirmed plans to attend Kirk’s funeral next week. He also announced his intention to posthumously award Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, highlighting the lasting imprint Kirk left on the country.
This final journey home stands as a reminder of the enduring power of love, faith, and family during moments of deep sorrow. Erika’s poise and devotion underscore the strength that can carry us through the darkest times, inspiring all who witness it.
How are you reflecting on Charlie Kirk’s legacy and the strength of his family? Share your thoughts and condolences in the comments below, and let others join the conversation.
