GUILTY'- Family Member BURNS Ilhan Omar In HUGE Fraud Scheme ct
GUILTY'- Family Member BURNS Ilhan Omar In HUGE Fraud Scheme
Investigation Links Ilhan Omar’s Sister To Massive Fraud Scheme
Reports indicate new questions are being raised about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s family following an investigation that uncovered connections between her sister and an address tied to individuals convicted in what authorities have described as the largest fraud scheme in Minnesota history.
The report does not accuse the Minnesota Democrat or her family of participating in the fraud, but observers note it points to business records and shared addresses that investigators and lawmakers are now examining as scrutiny surrounding the scandal continues.
According to an investigation published by the conservative outlet The Daily Wire, Omar’s sister, Sahra Noor, incorporated one of her consulting businesses using the address of a Minnesota woman whose business relationships allegedly connect her to multiple individuals convicted in the massive Feeding Our Future fraud case.
Media reports note the Feeding Our Future case involved hundreds of millions of dollars in federally funded child nutrition programs that prosecutors say were fraudulently billed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Federal prosecutors have described it as the largest public fraud case in Minnesota’s history.
The Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee has been examining issues related to the scandal.
Earlier this year, political analysts note Republican lawmakers sought to subpoena records from Omar as part of the committee’s investigation, but Democratic members voted to block that effort.
The Daily Wire reported that Noor incorporated Grit Partners Consulting using a residence on Hyacinth Avenue in Lakeville, Minnesota.
According to the report, the home is owned by Mashah Ahmed Ali and his wife, Ister Ahmed Afraa.
Public business records cited by the outlet show Afraa was associated with multiple companies alongside individuals later convicted in the Feeding Our Future investigation.
Among them was Hanna Marekegn, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud after admitting to stealing approximately $7 million through the federal meals program.
Federal prosecutors alleged Marekegn falsely claimed to be serving thousands of meals to children each day while using the proceeds to purchase luxury properties.
The investigation also alleges Afraa maintained business relationships with Sahra Nur, another individual who pleaded guilty in the Feeding Our Future case and was sentenced to prison.
According to court filings cited in the report, Nur admitted operating companies that prosecutors said submitted fraudulent meal reimbursement claims and provided false invoices to facilitate the scheme.
The Daily Wire also reported that Noor’s consulting company, Grit Partners, has publicly stated it helped secure more than $20 million for health initiatives and worked on projects supported by federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The report further notes that Noor previously led People’s Center Clinics & Services, which received a $2 million legislative earmark while Omar served in the Minnesota Legislature.
Observers point out the article does not allege that the earmark was connected to the Feeding Our Future investigation.
When contacted by The Daily Wire, Mashah Ahmed Ali reportedly denied knowledge of companies registered at his address or in his wife’s name.
“There must be some sort of scam going on. I have no idea,” he told the outlet.
He also said he had “nothing to do with anything” involving the businesses identified in the report.
According to the article, Afraa did not respond to requests for comment.
The Daily Wire also reported that Noor did not respond to its request for comment.
At the time of publication, reports note neither federal prosecutors nor Minnesota state investigators have publicly accused Rep. Omar or Sahra Noor of criminal wrongdoing in connection with the Feeding Our Future case.
The investigation instead focuses on business registrations, shared addresses and associations with individuals who have been convicted in the broader fraud scheme.
As legal proceedings continue against other defendants involved in the case, legal experts note the Feeding Our Future scandal remains one of the largest public corruption investigations in Minnesota’s history, with prosecutors alleging that hundreds of millions of dollars intended to feed children were instead diverted through fraudulent organizations and shell companies.
Supreme Court Justices Warn Rogue Lower Court Judges
Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh issued warnings this summer to lower court judges, cautioning them against defying precedents set by the high court in a series of cases involving President Donald Trump’s administration.
“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Gorsuch wrote.
The decision was related to Trump’s cancellation of nearly $800 million in federal research grants. Kavanaugh joined the opinion, which criticized a district court for disregarding an earlier Supreme Court order.
Gorsuch noted that it was “the third time in a matter of weeks this court has had to intercede in a case ‘squarely controlled’ by one of its precedents.” He added, “When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.”
The decision allowed the administration to keep the grants frozen, overturning a ruling from U.S. District Judge William Young, who made the baseless claim he had “never seen government racial discrimination like this.”
Other justices have also criticized lower courts.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared together at an event for lawyers and judges held at the federal courthouse, with Senior U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman moderating the discussion.
The hour-long session quickly turned into something more revealing than the typical collegial exchange the Supreme Court often projects in public appearances.
Jackson sharply criticized the court’s growing reliance on emergency rulings known as the “shadow docket,” which allows the justices to act without full briefing, oral argument, or detailed written opinions.
While full litigation continues in the lower courts, the court increasingly uses the emergency process to resolve high-stakes disputes involving major national policies.
Jackson expressed her unwavering criticism of the court’s tendency to intervene at the emergency stage in politically sensitive cases.
“I just feel like this uptick in the court’s willingness to get involved … is a real unfortunate problem.”
She described the emergency process as “a warped kind of proceeding” and said it is “not serving the court or this country well.”
Jackson argued that the number of emergency applications reaching the justices could decline if the court were more reluctant to grant them.
She also suggested that frequent Supreme Court intervention may influence how lower court judges approach politically charged disputes, potentially leading them to issue broader rulings in anticipation of Supreme Court review.
Jackson indicated that lower courts may feel pressure to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions if they believe the Supreme Court is likely to step in.
Kavanaugh rejected the criticism and defended the court’s responsibility to act when emergency applications arrive, declaring, “None of us enjoy this.”
Kavanaugh said the court cannot simply ignore emergency requests once they reach the justices. He argued that declining to act would effectively allow a single lower court ruling to dictate national policy.
Emergency rulings from lower courts have increasingly blocked presidential actions nationwide through nationwide injunctions. Kavanaugh said the Supreme Court must respond when those rulings immediately affect federal policy.
He also noted that the surge in emergency litigation is not unique to the Trump administration.
Kavanaugh said the court granted similar requests from the Biden administration, though at a somewhat lower rate.
He argued that the growing number of emergency applications reflects a broader shift in how modern presidents govern.
Presidents from both parties have increasingly relied on executive orders and administrative actions to implement policy.
Kavanaugh said that trend stems in part from Congress struggling to pass legislation in a deeply divided political environment.
When Congress cannot act, he said, presidents often seek to advance policy through executive authority.
Those executive actions frequently face immediate legal challenges in federal court. Kavanaugh said that dynamic has turned the judiciary into a central battleground for political and policy disputes.
He also noted that in some cases, the court has chosen to hear full arguments rather than issue quick emergency rulings. That approach allows the justices to provide longer explanations and more detailed legal reasoning in particularly significant cases.
Kavanaugh praised Chief Justice John Roberts for carefully navigating the court’s tensions. He said Roberts has sought to maintain the court’s institutional credibility amid intense political pressure.
Roberts recently issued a statement rejecting calls from some Trump allies to impeach judges who ruled against the administration. The chief justice said impeachment should not be used as a response to disagreements with judicial decisions.
Jackson acknowledged that the court’s issue is complicated.
“There’s no easy answer, for sure.”
Before that, Justice Samuel Alito said a federal judge had committed an “act of judicial hubris” in a case involving another Trump policy.
BREAKING: Voter ID Bill Passes, Sparking New Political Debate.
A majority of House and Senate Republicans have been trying to pass legislation that 75-80 percent of the American people on both sides of the aisle want, but a year later, it still hasn’t reached President Trump’s desk.
Of course, we’re talking about the SAVE America Act, with its provisions for federal voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements as election-integrity upgrades.
On Wednesday, the House passed legislation to implement voter identification requirements ahead of the midterm elections by attaching the measure to a separate bill that would also restrict members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
But here’s the catch: The Voter ID Act, included as part of the Stop Insider Trading Act, faces long odds in the Senate, where it would require 60 votes to advance.
Nevertheless, the House approved the package largely along party lines on Wednesday, July 22, by a vote of 232-198.
The legislation, introduced in part in response to President Donald Trump’s call for Congress to adopt key provisions of the controversial SAVE America Act, may not become law.
Even so, it is expected to shape the midterm election debate by highlighting issues such as congressional ethics, stock trading, election integrity, and voter identification.
Again, according to recent polling, the vast majority of Americans want voter ID, making it extremely frustrating for them and the president over Congress’s inability to get it done.
Republicans have accused Democrats of opposing what they describe as common-sense election reforms that enjoy broad public support. Thirteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the bill.
Most Democrats, however, opposed the legislation. Critics, including Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., argued that Republicans used a legislative “trick” to advance provisions they said would significantly undermine mail-in voting, USA Today reported.
“Make no mistake; this is a trap,” Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, said on the House floor.
“This bill is to make it harder for eligible Americans to vote, and the Republican leadership is trying to trick us into supporting it by calling it a congressional stock trading ban,” he falsely claimed.
It is insanely easy to obtain an ID from any number of government entities, and in most cases, the ID is cost-free.
Republicans argued that a controversy that emerged this week in New Jersey underscored the need to pass the legislation.
The state’s governor attributed the mistaken addition of approximately 6,600 non-U.S. citizens to the voter rolls to a programming error at the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.
USA Today claimed that about 400 of those non-citizens voted, but it’s not clear where the outlet came up with that number.
USA Today also claimed that the addition of the 6,600 non-citizens was due to a “software error,” but the software company, France-based IDEMIA, has since denied those claims and laid the blame squarely on New Jersey officials.
“Voter ID ensures the sanctity of our elections and ensures confidence by the American people in our elections,” said Rep. Mike Lawler, R-New York.
“The American people should watch how every single member votes on this bill.”
The Stop Insider Trading Act, which was combined with the voter ID legislation, would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children from purchasing individual stocks while in office.
However, the bill would not require lawmakers to divest any stocks they already own. A separate bipartisan proposal, the Restore Trust in Congress Act, would go further by requiring members of Congress to sell their existing individual stock holdings.
Rep. Bryan Steil, a Republican from Wisconsin who introduced the recently passed bill, stated that opponents of the legislation presented conflicting arguments.
“Some the arguments made today are what I call the Goldilocks argument: The bill doesn’t do enough, or the bill does too much,” he said on the House floor.
Iran Fired Ballistic Missiles at American Forces — Trump’s Response Was Lit
“They’re going to get a beating.”
That’s what the President of the United States told Fox News Wednesday morning after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched a surprise ballistic missile attack on U.S. forces in Jordan Tuesday evening. Well, a version of that, actually.
Every missile was intercepted. Then U.S. and Saudi aircraft struck Iranian proxy infrastructure across eastern Iraq. And now Trump has promised Iran is about to experience something considerably more severe than what it’s received so far.
“We’re going to beat the living daylights out of them,” he told Fox News. He was even more direct in the clip that circulated: “We’re going to beat the f—— s— out of them.”
This is not empty rhetoric. This administration has demonstrated — repeatedly, with documented results — that it means exactly what it says about Iran. Operation Midnight Hammer destroyed their nuclear program. Operation Epic Fury decimated their military and political leadership. Three weeks of daily strikes have followed their ceasefire violations. Bridges and power plants have been explicitly threatened. And now, after a direct ballistic missile attack on American personnel in Jordan, Trump has announced what’s coming next in language that leaves absolutely no room for misinterpretation.
Let’s be clear about what Iran attempted Tuesday. Not a drone attack through a proxy. Not an indirect harassment of commercial shipping. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched ballistic missiles from Iranian soil, targeting American military forces directly. They got everything intercepted and a joint U.S.-Saudi strike on their logistics network in Iraq in return. And their response to that outcome was to continue talks about a potential ceasefire.
The ceasefire conversation is the tell. Iran wants relief from the military and economic pressure the Trump administration has applied. They want a deal. But they keep firing between negotiating sessions — testing whether they can extract concessions while simultaneously continuing to attack American forces and American allies. Every previous American administration gave them that option. The Iran deal. The nuclear negotiations. The endless diplomatic engagement that produced nothing while Iran’s centrifuges kept spinning and their proxies kept killing Americans.
Trump’s answer to that model has been consistent since January: no, and here’s what happens if you keep trying it.
Tuesday night, Iran tried it again. They fired ballistic missiles at American forces in Jordan. Every missile was shot down. Their proxy infrastructure in Iraq got destroyed in the same evening. And Wednesday morning, the President of the United States went on Fox News and told them personally what’s coming.
Thirty years of American presidents talked tough about Iran and then negotiated. Trump talks tough about Iran and then bombs them. The IRGC has now received enough evidence to understand the difference.
They’re going to get a beating. He said so.
They should believe him. The track record says they should.
SCOTUS Gives Florida Greenlight To Get Justice Against Child Killer
The U.S. Supreme Court and Florida’s highest court have firmly rejected last-ditch efforts to halt the execution of James Aren Duckett, a former police officer convicted of the brutal 1987 rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl, clearing the way for the long-delayed delivery of justice.
Duckett, 68, was scheduled for lethal injection at noon on July 28, 2026, at Florida State Prison. Governor Ron DeSantis signed the death warrant in February, initially setting an earlier date that was delayed for additional DNA testing.
The Florida Supreme Court on July 24 denied Duckett’s motion for a stay of execution, affirming a lower court’s rejection of his sixth successive postconviction motion and a second post-warrant request for further DNA testing.
In its ruling, the Florida Supreme Court stated: “We affirm the circuit court’s rulings. We therefore deny Duckett’s motion for a stay of execution.”
The justices noted that prior DNA testing results “did not exonerate Duckett” and that additional claims were procedurally barred.
No rehearing would be considered.
Chief Justice Couriel and Justices Muñiz, Grosshans, Francis, and Sasso concurred.
Duckett’s attorneys then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court, filing an application for a stay of execution (docketed as 26A119) along with a petition for a writ of certiorari.
They argued that the denial of further DNA testing violated due process and claimed “no direct evidence has ever linked Mr. Duckett to the crime,” insisting that untested evidence could demonstrate innocence or reduce his sentence. The filing warned of a potential “wrongful execution.”
The Supreme Court denied the stay applications for both Duckett and fellow death-row inmate Dominick Occhicone on July 28, allowing Florida’s scheduled double execution to proceed.
The denials came after the state responded and the full briefing process was completed.
Duckett was a Mascotte police officer when he was convicted nearly four decades ago of sexually battering and murdering 11-year-old Teresa McAbee.
He has remained on death row for more than 30 years through successive appeals.
After DeSantis signed the warrant, courts granted limited DNA testing; the results proved inconclusive and failed to support claims of innocence.
Subsequent requests for more testing were rejected as time-barred and lacking merit.
One justice described certain postconviction motions as “both time-barred and frivolous, undoubtedly filed only for unreasonably delaying his execution further.”
This case emphasizes the necessity of finality in capital cases involving the most heinous crimes.
Endless successive challenges, even after DNA opportunities have been provided and exhausted without exoneration, risk turning the justice system into a never-ending delay mechanism that denies closure to victims’ families.
Teresa McAbee was a child whose life was stolen in an unimaginable act of violence by someone sworn to protect the public.
After almost 40 years of legal process, the courts have determined that the convictions and sentence stand.
Florida, under Governor DeSantis, has led the nation in carrying out lawful death sentences for the worst offenders.
The state has conducted numerous executions in recent months, reflecting its commitment to enforce the law as written and as upheld by juries and appellate courts.
Denials of stays in Duckett’s case affirm that legitimate claims receive review and dilatory tactics prompt timely accountability.
What happens next is the execution of the sentence lawfully imposed and repeatedly affirmed.
With federal and state courts having rejected further delays, the process moves forward according to the warrant.
Lower federal courts and the Eleventh Circuit also denied related challenges, including those involving simultaneous scheduling with Occhicone.
The denials in Duckett v. Florida and related filings represent the justice system functioning as intended: thorough review followed by enforcement of final judgments.
For the family of Teresa McAbee and for the principle that the most serious crimes demand the most serious consequences, these rulings deliver long-overdue resolution.
The rule of law requires that after decades of process, sentences for the rape and murder of a child are carried out.
