Translate

10 December 2025

MSN's Selective Storytelling: Shielding Ilhan Omar While Ignoring Billions in Somali-Led Fraud and the Socialist Roots of Corruption

 By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com

In the world of mainstream media, narratives are carefully curated to fit agendas, often at the expense of the full truth. A prime example is MSN's recent coverage of Rep. Ilhan Omar's fiery response to President Trump's comments labeling Somali migrants as "garbage." The article, titled "Ilhan Omar gives blistering response to Trump after he calls her and other Somali migrants 'garbage'," paints Omar as a defiant hero standing against bigotry, while conveniently omitting the massive fraud scandals plaguing her Minnesota district—scandals that have siphoned billions from American taxpayers and fueled exactly the kind of resentment Trump was voicing. This isn't journalism; it's propaganda designed to sidestep the real conversations Americans demand: Why are we allowing waves of immigrants to exploit our generosity, enriching themselves through systemic theft, with no accountability from leaders like Omar or her state's governor, Tim Walz?

Let's pull back the curtain on what MSN doesn't want you to see. The Feeding Our Future scandal, centered in Omar's Minneapolis-based district, represents one of the largest COVID-era fraud schemes in U.S. history. Federal prosecutors have charged over 78 individuals—predominantly from Minnesota's Somali community—with defrauding more than $250 million in federal child nutrition funds. But that's just the tip of the iceberg; when you factor in related childcare and other social service frauds, the total theft exceeds $1 billion in taxpayer dollars. These funds, meant to feed hungry children during the pandemic, were instead used to buy luxury cars, overseas real estate, and even allegedly fund armed groups in Somalia. Defendants created fake meal sites, inflated child counts by thousands, and laundered money abroad, all while exploiting relaxed oversight rules.

But her family's story isn't one of innocent victims escaping a failed state—it's tied to the very regime that caused the failure.

This isn't isolated. Minnesota has seen a pattern of fraud in programs targeting Somali immigrants, including childcare assistance where millions were funneled overseas, some reportedly to terrorist-linked groups. In 2018, reports emerged of $100 million in childcare welfare fraud, with funds allegedly supporting militants in Somalia and the Middle East. Yet, MSN's article glosses over this, framing Trump's remarks as mere racism rather than a reaction to these very real abuses of American generosity. Why? Because acknowledging the fraud would force a discussion on immigration policies that prioritize unchecked influxes over vetting and integration—policies championed by progressives like Omar, who pushes for open borders and socialist redistribution that, in practice, enable such exploitation.

Her father, Nur Omar Mohamed, was a colonel in the Somali National Army under dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, a Marxist-Leninist ruler whose brutal policies led to the Isaaq genocide

Now, consider the near-miss with Tim Walz, Minnesota's governor and Omar's fellow Democrat, who was on the verge of becoming Vice President. This scandal unfolded entirely on Walz's watch. State officials spotted red flags as early as July 2019—before COVID even hit—yet failed to intervene, allowing the fraud to balloon. The Minnesota Department of Education, under Walz's administration, ignored warnings and even sued the USDA for trying to tighten rules, fearing it would "discriminate" against minority-led nonprofits. Had Walz ascended to the White House, imagine this lax oversight going nationwide: billions more vanishing into fraudulent schemes, all under the guise of "equity" and "inclusion." House Republicans are now investigating, but the damage is done—American families footed the bill while corrupt networks thrived.

When Barre was overthrown, ... the Omars—fled .... from the rightful backlash against their own oppressive rule.

Digging deeper into Omar herself reveals a troubling pattern that MSN won't touch. Omar arrived in the U.S. as a refugee in 1995, fleeing Somalia's civil war. But her family's story isn't one of innocent victims escaping a failed state—it's tied to the very regime that caused the failure. Her father, Nur Omar Mohamed, was a colonel in the Somali National Army under dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, a Marxist-Leninist ruler whose brutal policies led to the Isaaq genocide and the country's collapse in 1991. Barre's family and allies, including military officers like Omar's father, enforced a socialist dictatorship that nationalized industries, suppressed dissent, and perpetrated atrocities against clans like the Isaaq, killing tens of thousands. When Barre was overthrown, his inner circle—including the Omars—fled not from a generic "failed government," but from the rightful backlash against their own oppressive rule. They weren't running from socialism's victims; they were escaping the consequences of being its enforcers.

Omar is importing that same failed ideology ... Barre's disastrous experiments, which enriched elites while impoverishing the masses.

Fast-forward to today, and it seems Omar is importing that same failed ideology to America. Her advocacy for socialist policies—universal healthcare, student debt forgiveness, and wealth redistribution—mirrors Barre's disastrous experiments, which enriched elites while impoverishing the masses. In Minnesota, we've seen a microcosm: fraud rings disguised as "community aid" programs siphon funds to a select few, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. Is this Omar's vision for the U.S.? A nation where the elite cloak theft in Marxist rhetoric, labeling any criticism as "hate"? MSN's omission protects this narrative, disabling comments to silence dissent and avoid the flood of facts about these scandals.

Americans deserve better. We welcome immigrants who contribute and uphold our values, not those who exploit our systems. It's time to demand accountability: Tighten immigration vetting, prosecute fraud aggressively, and reject the socialist siren song that enables it all. If MSN won't tell the whole story, sites like nosocialism.com will—because the truth isn't "garbage"; it's the antidote to corruption.

18 September 2025

The FBI Claims Right Wing Extremist Groups are More Violent than the Left

Why "Right Wing Extremism" Labels Don’t Fit the Republican Party

By Juan Fermin for NoSocialism.com
Published: September 18, 2025

The term "Right Wing Extremism" gets thrown around a lot these days, especially by outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), often to paint the Republican Party as a hotbed of dangerous ideologies. The FBI’s categorization of groups like white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) as "right wing" fuels this narrative, but it’s a mischaracterization that falls apart under scrutiny. These extremist groups have nothing to do with the Republican Party’s core principles or history. Here’s why.


The Republican Party’s Founding: Equality, Not Hate

The Republican Party was born in 1854 with a clear mission: to oppose the expansion of slavery and promote equality. This was a radical stance at a time when only white, male landowners could vote. The party’s first president, Abraham Lincoln, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing enslaved Black Americans, and Republicans pushed through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, abolishing slavery, granting citizenship, and securing voting rights for Black men. These weren’t just policies—they were the party’s reason for existing.Contrast this with the KKK, founded in 1865 by Southern Democrats to terrorize freed Black Americans and their Republican allies during Reconstruction. Historical records, including those from the Library of Congress, show the KKK’s early leaders, like Nathan Bedford Forrest, were tied to Democratic resistance against Republican-led civil rights efforts. The KKK’s second wave in the 1920s further aligned with Democratic politics, notably at the 1924 Democratic National Convention, dubbed the “Klanbake” for its open Klan influence.

White supremacists and neo-Nazis, often lumped as "right wing" today, share the KKK’s legacy of racial hatred, targeting Blacks, Jews, and other minorities. The Republican Party’s foundational commitment to equality stands in direct opposition to this. If anything, these groups historically opposed Republicans, not aligned with them. So why the conflation? It’s a convenient way to smear a political opponent without evidence.

Expanding the Vote: Republicans Broke Barriers

Before the Republican Party’s influence, voting was restricted to white, male landowners. Republicans changed that. The 15th Amendment (1870), championed by Republicans, guaranteed voting rights regardless of race. Later, Republicans supported the 19th Amendment (1920), securing women’s suffrage. These milestones expanded democracy to Blacks, women, and ordinary Americans, dismantling the elitist and discriminatory systems of the time.

Compare this to the KKK and neo-Nazis, who thrive on exclusion. The KKK’s terror campaigns aimed to suppress Black voters through violence and intimidation, while neo-Nazis like Blood Tribe, as recently as September 2025, have pushed for racial “collectivism” that excludes non-whites. These groups’ actions clash with the Republican Party’s historical push for inclusive voting rights. Labeling them "right wing" ignores this fundamental divide.

Nazism and Socialism: Not a Republican Blueprint

The "Nazi" label—short for National Socialist German Workers’ Party—gets weaponized to tie Republicans to extremism, but it’s a gross misrepresentation. Nazism, while allowing private property in name, was a form of socialism where the government controlled prices, profits, production, and even factory upgrades. If you were in the “wrong” group—Jews, Romani, or others—your property, businesses, and wealth were confiscated. This centralized control is the antithesis of the Republican Party’s advocacy for small government, free markets, and individual liberty.

True right-wing principles, as embraced by Republicans, emphasize limited government intervention, personal responsibility, and economic freedom. The party’s platform, from Reagan’s tax cuts to Trump’s deregulation, reflects this. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, by contrast, often reject capitalism in favor of collectivist or authoritarian systems, as seen in their manifestos on sites like The American Futurist. In September 2025, white supremacist leader Christopher Pohlhaus explicitly called out conservatives like Charlie Kirk for undermining their racial agenda, proving they see no ally in Republican ideals.

The Smear Tactic: Why the Mislabeling Persists

So why do the FBI and media lump these groups with the "right"? It’s a political strategy. By branding white supremacists and neo-Nazis as "right wing," critics can paint the Republican Party as complicit in extremism without evidence. The SPLC, for instance, labels conservative groups like Turning Point USA as “white Christian supremacist” for their stances on immigration or cultural issues, despite TPUSA’s diverse following of Black, Latino, and LGBTQ+ conservatives. This tactic obscures the KKK’s Democratic roots and the fact that modern white supremacists reject mainstream conservatives.

The Republican Party isn’t perfect, and its modern policies spark debate. But equating it with the KKK or neo-Nazis ignores history and logic. Republicans fought for equality and voting rights when it was unpopular, while these extremist groups built their identity on hatred and exclusion. Their economic and social ideologies—collectivist, authoritarian, and discriminatory—clash with the party’s small-government ethos.

Conclusion: Stop the Smears, See the Truth

The next time someone calls the Republican Party “right-wing extremist,” ask them to define it. The KKK and neo-Nazis? They’re rooted in hatred and control, not the Republican vision of liberty and opportunity. The party’s history of breaking barriers for Blacks, women, and everyday Americans proves it. Don’t let lazy labels rewrite reality.

Juan Fermin is a political analyst for NoSocialism.com, dedicated to exposing threats to freedom.

Posted by Juan Fermin on September 18, 2025

15 September 2025

Amir Odom Debunks the Lies: Why Charlie Kirk Was No Racist

Why Charlie Kirk Was No Racist

By Juan Fermin for NoSocialism.com

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's tragic assassination on September 10, 2025, the mainstream media and left-wing activists have ramped up their smears, painting the Turning Point USA founder as a racist, homophobe, and white supremacist. But a powerful new video from Black gay conservative activist Amir Odom is shattering this narrative, and Elon Musk's retweet of it on September 12 has sent it viral with over 2.5 million views. Titled "Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk," Odom's 8-minute YouTube clip (posted September 11) methodically dismantles the attacks, proving Kirk's focus was on merit and common sense, not hate. As a Black gay man who knew Kirk personally, Odom's testimony cuts through the fiction – and it's a must-watch for anyone tired of the left's character assassination.

The Video: A Black Gay Conservative's Bold Defense

Odom, a rising star in conservative circles known for his unfiltered takes on race and identity politics, goes straight to the heart of the smears. "Charlie gave me a platform when others wouldn't – he didn't care about my race or sexuality; he cared about ideas and truth," Odom says in the video, shared on his X account (@amirxodom). He addresses Kirk's infamous "moronic Black woman" comment from January 2024, explaining it wasn't about race but a critique of affirmative action lowering standards in customer service roles. "Kirk was calling out quotas that put unqualified people in jobs – not hating Black women," Odom asserts, drawing from his own experiences in diverse professional settings.

Odom also tackles Kirk's questions about the competence of pilots and other professionals, framing them as concerns over DEI initiatives in high-stakes fields like aviation and the Secret Service. "If Kirk hated Black people, why did he have so many Black speakers on his tours?" Odom asks, highlighting TPUSA events packed with Black, Latino, Asian, and even LGBTQ+ conservatives. He shares how Kirk encouraged his online presence: "Charlie told me to speak up – he treated me as an equal, not a token." The video includes clips of Kirk debating diverse audiences, showing his commitment to free speech over division.

On transgender issues, Odom defends Kirk's caution against life-altering surgeries for 14-year-olds, noting studies showing many detransition later. "It wasn't hate – it was protecting kids from rushed decisions," Odom explains, aligning with Kirk's "common-sense" approach. And the white supremacist label? Odom laughs it off: "Actual white supremacists like Blood Tribe called Kirk their 'enemy' for undermining racial collectivism. If he was one of them, why did they hate him?"

Musk's retweet – "Truth from a Black gay conservative – the left's smears against Charlie Kirk are pure fiction. He was about merit and freedom for all" – skyrocketed the video, trending under #CharlieKirkTruth. It's a direct rebuke to media like CNN and MSNBC, which have recycled Kirk's quotes to fuel post-assassination attacks.

Kirk's Diverse Coalition: Proof Against the Hate Narrative

Odom's video underscores a key fact: If Kirk truly hated Black people or the LGBTQ+ community, why did they flock to his events? Turning Point USA's Young Black Leadership Summit drew hundreds of Black conservatives, with activists like Chandler Crump crediting Kirk for equal treatment: "He said it doesn’t matter if you are Black or white... He paid attention to us." Kirk's "Blexit" campaign with Candace Owens empowered Black Americans to leave the Democratic Party, filling rallies with MAGA-hatted diverse youth.

Latino support was massive in states like Arizona, where Kirk helped flip it for Trump in 2024 through Spanish-language initiatives at AmericaFest. LGBTQ+ conservatives like transgender activist Blaire White debated Kirk civilly on his podcast, and Log Cabin Republicans attended TPUSA events, drawn to his free speech advocacy. Kirk's message – economic opportunity, family values, and meritocracy – resonated because it was inclusive, not exclusionary. As Odom puts it, "Charlie cared about everyone succeeding on merit, not quotas."

This contradicts the KKK's legacy – a Democratic-founded terror group from 1865 that targeted Republicans and minorities. Modern white supremacists rejected Kirk outright, yet the left slaps the label on him to justify smears.

Media's Role: Smears Over Substance

The video exposes how media cherry-picks Kirk's words – the "moronic Black woman" line becomes "racist," ignoring his DEI critique. Boeing's 50/50 engineer hiring quota is a prime example: With few women at the top of engineering classes, standards dropped, leading to quality issues like SpaceX outpacing them and plane defects. Kirk warned of this; Odom calls it "common sense, not hate."

Transgender policies? Kirk opposed rushed surgeries for minors, citing detransition regrets – a protective stance, not bigotry. Odom, as a gay man, agrees: "Kirk debated us fairly; he wasn't afraid of diverse voices."

A Call to Truth in Kirk's Legacy

Amir Odom's video isn't just a rebuttal – it's a testament to Kirk's impact. Retweeted by Musk, it's gone viral, reminding us that Kirk's diverse coalition proves the smears wrong. He wasn't a hater; he was a fighter for standards and freedom. Watch it here: YouTube Link. As we mourn Kirk, let's honor his legacy by rejecting lies and embracing truth.

Juan Fermin is a political analyst for NoSocialism.com, dedicated to exposing threats to freedom.

Posted: September 15, 2025