Quote:Minnesota Democratic officeholders and candidates, including Ilhan Omar, received more than $53,000 in campaign contributions from individuals later charged in the Feeding Our Future fraud case, according to records reviewed by investigators. The fraud scheme diverted approximately $250 million in taxpayer funds intended to feed children during the pandemic.

Attorney General Keith Ellison, his son Minneapolis Councilman Jeremiah Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, Rep. Ilhan Omar, and others received contributions from defendants linked to the nonprofit Feeding Our Future and connected food sites, reports the New York Post.

During a December 11, 2021, meeting with Somali business leaders, two of whom were later indicted, Ellison told attendees, “I’m not here because I think it’s going to help my re-election.” Days after the meeting, Ellison’s campaign received $10,000 in donations from businessmen, including Gandi Mohamed, who made a maximum $2,500 contribution before being indicted on federal bribery and fraud charges. Three additional donations of $2,500 tied to Feeding Our Future defendants were accepted the same day.

Omar accepted $7,400 in donations from individuals later convicted in the Feeding Our Future case, the Post reports. Her campaign said the contributions were returned after the scandal surfaced in 2022 and that Omar was not aware of the fraud.

Link

Must watch....

NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX... nope, a young kid doing all of their "jobs"

If people dont get thrown in ******* prison for this then we might has well get on with the war.

If Enron execs got 10-24 years in prison this should be at least that and Id say more....

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

If they aren't held accountable, we are done as a country. Time to stand up and stop this BS.

Hopefully there are some investigative "true" reporters looking into the states of Ohio and Washington. Both of those states rank 2nd and 3rd in number of Somalis. Id wager the fraud is immense there as well.

Omar should be stripped of authority and deported.

I bet this is just the tip of the iceberg. How many other ethnic or foreign national groups receive government grants through NGOs? These groups are likely to number in the hundreds, if not thousands. Our federal government's coffers appear to be overflowing with cash, allowing us to distribute large sums without oversight.

The result is the same next generation of Marxism that I have been harping on about for the last 5-6 years. It is as predictable as previous-generation Marxism in that it reveals itself gradually, taking its time in presenting itself to the American audience. It gradually increases its flow, releasing new levels of its toxic brew into American consciousness until it reaches a point where it can take pride in its ability to emerge from darkness and become mainstream. We've arrived at that point. We now have socialist Islamic mayors—consider what this means: one ideology advocates for the destruction of every sacred religious site, object, or human representative across the globe, whereas the other seeks to eliminate all individuals who do not explicitly endorse Islam as a universal religion—as well as Islamic representatives in Congress. They and their constituents are not here to assimilate and achieve the American dream through honest hard work. They're here to take over and bend us to their will.

The irony of the situation is profound. The very mechanisms we've used for 250 years to ensure a civilized, open, and ordered society are now being used against us to destabilize our most cherished institutions and the ideals they represent. Foreign hostile actors are now usurping our superiority by leveraging our legal system against us. They are actively campaigning for and winning higher office at the local and state levels in greater numbers because we are a tolerant people, despite what the perpetual victim class will tell the world. We have surrendered our sovereignty in many areas of the country to tribal savages whose primary obligation is to send American tax dollars back home to support whatever warlord a particular community may serve/support.

We are committing cultural and social suicide by standing idly by as foreign agents inflict death by a thousand cuts on us, while in some cases we do nothing but applaud them.

(12-28-2025 09:33 AM)450bench Wrote:  Omar should be stripped of authority and deported.

They don't need to stop with her.

Minnesota Flag:


Old Flag:


Somali Flag:

Of course he was in on it. That kind of massive crime doesn't occur without high-level complicity. He probably took everything he learned from all the workshops put on by the CCP, which he likely attended while on many of his numerous and documented trips to China, and applied those "best practices" to his governance of Minnesota. He should be investigated as a bought and paid for agent of the CCP.

Thank f***ing Christ Tim Walz is not in the WH with KH right now.

This story would never have seen the light of day as a result of those two running the country.

Jacob Frey would be the Governor, or probably that idiotic female Lt. Governor who wore a hijab as a sign of submission and surrender to Islam.

JFC, I can't take living in Retardia aymore.

The world as we knew it died on December 21st, 2012, and we've been in hell ever since.

When it all finally comes out that China has been behind almost every subversive, destructive thing we've witnessed in this country so far in this century alone, if I'm still alive and able, I will jump up and down shouting, "I told y'all so!!"

Establishing a free trade policy with China back in the 20th century was foolish.

The following probably deserves its own thread. I'd be interested in seeing some of your interactions with whatever AI platform you use. For me, the following is as much as I've interacted with AI, ever.

I posed this statement: Establishing a free trade policy with China back in the 20th century was foolish.

Leo, Brave's AI, responded with the following long-ass read interspersed with questions or comments from me.

Quick Answer
The claim that establishing a free trade policy with China in the 20th century was foolish is contested by economic analysis, which suggests that while the policy had significant disruptive effects on certain American communities, the overall economic benefits to the United States were substantial and the alternative of isolation was neither practical nor advisable. The granting of permanent normal trade relations to China in 2000 and its accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001 accelerated a trade integration that was already underway, driven by China’s own economic reforms and liberalization efforts. Critics argue that economists underestimated the impact of trade with a low-income country, as previous trade patterns were primarily among wealthy nations, and the sudden competition from low-wage labor led to the "China Shock," which destroyed over a million manufacturing jobs and caused long-term economic distress in affected communities. However, proponents of the policy emphasize that the benefits—such as lower consumer prices, increased innovation among American firms, and overall gains in national welfare—outweigh the localized losses. The idea that the U.S. should have rejected China’s WTO accession is considered implausible, as it would have divided the international community, weakened the WTO, and risked provoking a hostile response from China, which was already moving toward economic liberalization at the time.

The "China Shock" refers to the significant economic disruption caused by the surge of Chinese imports after its WTO accession in 2001, leading to job losses in manufacturing regions such as Southern Ohio, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

Despite these localized impacts, the U.S. as a whole has benefited from trade with China, particularly through lower prices for consumers, especially among the poor and middle class, and through increased competition that spurred innovation.

Economists like David Autor, one of the authors of the China Shock research, have stated that while trade with China harmed specific workers, it does not mean trade overall has been bad for the U.S. economy, as standard economic models predict net gains from international trade
.
The notion that the U.S. should have foreseen China’s later shift toward a state-led development model under President Xi Jinping in 2013 is considered unrealistic, as the economic reforms during the WTO accession were substantial and aligned with liberalization goals at the time.

Some economists now argue that classic free market theory failed to account for the difficulty workers face in adjusting to trade shocks, a phenomenon described as "theory-induced blindness" by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman.

elaborate


Economic Impact of U.S.-China Free Trade Policy
The establishment of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China in 2000 and its subsequent accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 significantly reshaped U.S.-China trade, leading to both substantial benefits and notable disruptions.

The "China Shock" and Labor Market Effects

A surge in Chinese imports after 2001, known as the "China Shock," led to significant job losses in U.S. manufacturing, particularly in industries like textiles and furniture.
Studies estimate between 550,000 and 2.4 million U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost due to increased import competition from China between 2000 and 2007.
Affected regions experienced long-term economic scarring, including higher unemployment, lower wages, reduced housing prices, and increased social problems such as poverty and drug-related mortality.
However, more recent analyses suggest that many of the industries impacted were already in decline and likely would have moved offshore regardless of China’s rise.

China Shock trade impact

Net Economic Benefits and Consumer Gains
Despite localized job losses, the overall U.S. economy benefited from trade with China.
Lower consumer prices, especially on goods like electronics and apparel, saved American households significantly—estimates suggest $411,000 per manufacturing job lost.
These savings disproportionately benefited low- and middle-income families.
A 2023 review of economic research concluded that U.S.-China trade generated aggregate welfare gains for both countries, with only about 6.3% of the U.S. population experiencing net losses when consumer benefits are factored in.

US China trade benefits and costs

Role of U.S. Policy vs. China’s Own Reforms
The granting of PNTR reduced uncertainty in U.S.-China trade but had a limited direct impact on import flows.
Research indicates that China’s own domestic economic reforms and WTO-mandated tariff reductions were the primary drivers of increased exports to the U.S., not U.S. trade liberalization.
For example, one study attributed two-thirds of the U.S. manufacturing response to China’s tariff cuts rather than U.S. policy changes.

Did PNTR cause the China Shock site:reddit.com

Broader Strategic and Structural Considerations
PNTR and WTO accession encouraged China to deepen market reforms, reduce state intervention, and strengthen rule of law—goals aligned with broader U.S. strategic interests at the time.
The agreement included strong safeguards, including a 12-year China-specific safeguard mechanism and continued use of anti-dumping measures for non-market economies.
Critics argue that economists underestimated worker adjustment costs, a phenomenon termed "theory-induced blindness," but most do not advocate reversing trade integration.



What about the risk associated with inferior and under-regulated manufacture of consumer goods

Risks of Inferior and Under-Regulated Chinese Consumer Goods
The rapid growth of Chinese manufacturing and e-commerce has led to persistent concerns over the safety and regulatory compliance of consumer goods imported into the U.S.

Product Safety and Regulatory Gaps
Chinese products have accounted for a disproportionate share of U.S. recalls: in 2014, they represented 51% of CPSC-posted recalls despite making up only 23% of consumer goods under CPSC jurisdiction.
Gaps in China’s regulatory system have led to unsafe exports, including melamine-laced pet food (linked to over 4,150 pet deaths), lead-contaminated toys, and drywall emitting harmful gases.
In 2015, 4.5 million hoverboards from China entered the U.S. before safety standards were established, many of which caught fire due to battery defects.

Chinese consumer product safety recalls

E-Commerce and Enforcement Challenges
The $800 de minimis rule allows small parcels from China to enter the U.S. duty-free with minimal inspection, enabling unregulated and counterfeit goods to bypass scrutiny.
Transshipment through third countries (e.g., Mexico, Vietnam) is used to evade tariffs and obscure origins, complicating enforcement.
U.S. regulators like the CPSC and FDA are overwhelmed by volume, inspecting only a fraction of imports, and lack authority to unilaterally recall products from uncooperative Chinese sellers.

US import safety Chinese goods site:reddit.com

High-Risk Sectors
Batteries and electronics: Defective lithium-ion batteries in devices like e-cigarettes and hoverboards have caused fires.
Medical products: Substandard or counterfeit items, including masks and testing kits, emerged during the pandemic.
Food and agriculture: FDA has flagged Chinese imports for unsafe additives, veterinary drug residues in seafood, and inadequate labeling.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
United States government agency
Wikipedia
cpsc.gov
CPSC_Logo.svg
Product Safety and Regulatory Gaps
E-Commerce and Enforcement Challenges
High-Risk Sectors

How does that affect the previous assessment that open trade with China has been a net positive?

The risks associated with inferior and under-regulated Chinese consumer goods do not overturn the assessment that U.S.-China trade has been a net positive, but they represent a significant cost that must be weighed within the broader economic calculus.

While product safety issues—such as toxic toys, defective batteries, and counterfeit goods—pose real dangers to consumers and undermine trust, these harms are generally localized and episodic, whereas the benefits of lower prices and increased competition are widespread and continuous. Regulatory agencies like the CPSC and FDA have struggled to keep pace with the volume of imports, particularly through e-commerce loopholes like the $800 de minimis rule, but enforcement mechanisms and bilateral cooperation (e.g., under the JCCT) have improved over time.

Economic analyses that find net welfare gains from trade typically account for product variety and quality improvements but may understate non-economic risks like health and safety. However, even when factoring in recalls, enforcement costs, and consumer harm, most studies conclude that the aggregate benefits still outweigh the costs, especially for low- and middle-income households that rely on affordable goods.

That said, the growing use of transshipment and evasion tactics to bypass tariffs and scrutiny highlights systemic vulnerabilities that could erode long-term trust and necessitate stronger multilateral standards.

US China trade safety regulation costs

Doesn't China's huge volume of exports to the US create a vulnerability to our national security?

Yes, China's large volume of exports to the U.S. creates strategic vulnerabilities, particularly in critical supply chains essential to national security.

China dominates global production and processing of rare earth elements—used in defense systems like F-35 jets, radar, and precision-guided weapons. It controls ~99% of heavy rare earth refining, and nearly 78% of U.S. defense platforms rely on Chinese-processed materials.
In 2025, China imposed export licensing requirements on key rare earths, allowing it to restrict shipments without a formal ban, thereby leveraging supply as a geopolitical tool.
The U.S. is also dependent on China for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), semiconductors, batteries, and critical minerals, creating risks of disruption during tensions.
Chinese export controls and the use of dual-use supply chains raise concerns about counterfeit components, intellectual property theft, and supply chain sabotage in defense systems.
While consumer goods trade brings economic benefits, the concentration of strategic manufacturing in China exposes the U.S. to economic coercion and military readiness risks.
In response, the U.S. has launched Section 232 investigations, promoted domestic production, and pursued allied supply chain alternatives, but significant dependencies remain.


In light of all the risks that have been discussed so far, does that change the assessment that open trade with China is a net positive

While China’s export dominance creates national security vulnerabilities—especially in critical sectors like rare earths, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals—this does not fully negate the assessment that open trade has been a net positive for the U.S. economy.

Economic benefits remain substantial: Lower consumer prices, increased product variety, and gains in efficiency continue to benefit U.S. households and firms.
Security risks are concentrated, not systemic: The dangers lie primarily in strategic supply chain dependencies, not in the broader volume of consumer trade.
Policy responses are evolving: The U.S. is mitigating risks through export controls, domestic investment (e.g., CHIPS Act), and allied supply chain diversification, rather than broad trade reversal.
Decoupling is neither feasible nor desirable: Complete disengagement would be economically costly and could accelerate global fragmentation.
Thus, the net positive assessment holds, but with major caveats: trade must be more selectively managed to protect national security while preserving economic gains.

How can it hold with such major caveats?

The assessment that open trade with China is a net positive holds only when narrowly defined in economic terms—such as consumer savings, market efficiency, and aggregate welfare. However, when national security, supply chain resilience, and strategic competition are factored in, the net benefit becomes highly contested.

Economic gains are real but unevenly distributed: Lower prices and increased product availability benefit consumers, especially low-income households, and drive innovation through competition.
Security costs are systemic and growing: Dependence on China for rare earths, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors creates strategic vulnerabilities that cannot be easily mitigated by market mechanisms.
Trade enables technological and military advancement in a strategic rival: U.S. investment and technology transfers—direct or indirect—have contributed to China’s military modernization, prompting new restrictions like Executive Order 14105 on outbound investments in sensitive sectors.
Interdependence is asymmetric: While the U.S. benefits economically, China gains access to capital, technology, and expertise that enhance its long-term strategic position.
Thus, the "net positive" view depends on the framework used:

Pure economics? → Likely yes.
National security and long-term strategic competition? → Increasingly no.
Policymakers now prioritize "de-risking" over decoupling, preserving economic benefits while shielding critical sectors from overreliance on China.

Apparently Leo is pro CCP, or at the very least an apologist for it.

(12-28-2025 11:19 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Thank f***ing Christ Tim Walz is not in the WH with KH right now.

This story would never have seen the light of day as a result of those two running the country.

Jacob Frey would be the Governor, or probably that idiotic female Lt. Governor who wore a hijab as a sign of submission and surrender to Islam.

JFC, I can't take living in Retardia aymore.

The world as we knew it died on December 21st, 2012, and we've been in hell ever since.

I think you misspelled Jan 20, 2009.

(12-28-2025 11:54 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-28-2025 11:19 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Thank f***ing Christ Tim Walz is not in the WH with KH right now.

This story would never have seen the light of day as a result of those two running the country.

Jacob Frey would be the Governor, or probably that idiotic female Lt. Governor who wore a hijab as a sign of submission and surrender to Islam.

JFC, I can't take living in Retardia aymore.

The world as we knew it died on December 21st, 2012, and we've been in hell ever since.

I think you misspelled Jan 20, 2009.

Actually, it was November 4th, 2008

Or November 3rd, 2020

Or September 11th, 2001

Or November 22nd, 1963

Or December 7th, 1941

Or April 14th, 1865

Nick Shirley video has hit 100 million views

Taking advantage of naive fools who believe the worst thing that can happen to you is being accused of racism.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

This is a organized crime operation. Those Somalis in the video are not bright enough to run any kind of well-oiled wide criminal operations that’s stealing billions for decades — someone(s) above them are running the show. It has to be government and political power along with foreign influence running this

(12-28-2025 11:49 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  This is a organized crime operation. Those Somalis in the video are not bright enough to run any kind of well-oiled wide criminal operations that’s stealing billions for decades — someone(s) above them are running the show. It has to be government and political power along with foreign influence running this

Most likely white women

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

Don’t know if anyone has mentioned it in any of these Somalian fraud threads, but remember that MN state lawmaker gunned down by the creep in the police uniform & Halloween mask? She was the deciding vote to stop giving health insurance to illegal aliens in Minn. Gotta wonder how her murder was tied to this

539 childcare centers in Washington state that list Somali as the primary language. Most don’t even give a street address.


Bet nearly every state that gives some sort of government funded program for childcare, healthcare….etc is going to show massive fraud and scam being perpetrated