Now, Canada’s National Observer brings us a story of the Don River going from a state of pollution to rival the Thames of London, to a biodiverse ecosystem home to over 20 species of fish. As with so many rivers that bisect cities all along each side of the border in the Great Lakes Region, […] The post Toronto River Once So Polluted it Caught on Fire Now Is Flush with Fish appeared first on Good News Network.

Author of How to Prep When You’re Broke and Build a Better Pantry on a Budget “I’ll just pull out my Glock/HK/Ruger and deal with those punks. Once they see their buddies drop, they’ll back off soon enough.” “We could end this by just killing anyone who sets foot on our block.” “All good Americans need to do is start mowing down protesters with their cars if the roads get blocked.” Chances are, if you ever read the comments or visit any type of social media outlet online, you’ve read some comments pretty similar to the ones above. After all, this is America, land of the free, home of the brave. It’s up to all good patriots to defend our property and our country from scumbags with deadly force. But not so fast. Things are never as cut-and-dried as people with 3-second solutions like to make them seem in the comments. You can’t escalate directly to lethal force in every situation. Let’s take a look at the situation Terry Trahan wrote about a few years ago, where a lady was sitting in a restaurant having dinner when she got surrounded by an unruly mob who insisted she raise her fist in the air in support of a group of activists. The comments section is filled with people who are apparently ready to open fire on a city street into a crowd of people. Is that really the appropriate response? While I absolutely agree that the behavior of that mob is horrible and that these things shouldn’t happen, is this a moment that requires the use of uncensored deadly force? Have any of these folks stopped to think about what happens after they open fire? Because I can tell you what is very likely to occur if you unload a magazine in a public space in the middle of downtown Washington DC. At best, you will be arrested and charged with brandishing a weapon or illegal discharge of a weapon. At worst, one of your bullets will go through its intended target and hit an innocent bystander – maybe a child – maybe even your own child who is making his way back from the bathroom.  Or you’ll kill a member of the angry mob, and someone will take the gun away and turn it on you, and you’ll be dead. Or you’ll valiantly take down three attackers and find yourself awaiting trial for homicide, among other charges. And you know what else? Every idiotic off-hand comment you ever made online about blowing people away will come back to haunt you in court. If you think you’re anonymous online, I assure you that you are not. Even when you use a VPN, your actual IP can be traced, given enough resources and time. Choosing how you escalate your response We’ve all heard the saying, “When your only tool is a hammer, you treat everything like it’s a nail.”  The same is true when your only tool is deadly force. Obviously, there are life and death situations in which deadly force is the only possible response if you want to live. When someone bursts into your home waving a gun screaming that they’re going to kill you, when someone in a mask is trying to drag you into a van with dark-tinted windows, when someone is clearly intent on beating the crap out of you until you’re dead – all of these things are situations in which your use of a lethal response is entirely justified. But… a lot of situations require more finesse unless you want to risk a) spending the rest of your life in prison and praying you don’t drop the soap or b) waiting for bloody vengeance from your adversary’s friends or family or c) criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits forever and ever until you die. You need to have an understanding of the appropriate escalation of force. A book I read last year has a place on everyone’s shelf during these times in which a conflict can arise for just about anyone, just about anywhere. That book is Scaling Force: Dynamic Decision Making Under Threat of Violence and it’s by Rory Miller. If you’ve been around here for a while, you may have seen my review of another of Miller’s books. That’s because, in my opinion, nobody knows more about the science of violence than Miller. As well, he spent years working in law enforcement settings, so he knows a lot about what happens after the violence takes place. To make a long story short, your goal should always be to use the lowest amount of force possible to get yourself safely out of the situation. Your ability to do this depends on understanding the different strategies you can employ and your skill at reading your opponent. Identify what the threat actually is. If you are in a situation in which you may have to defend yourself, it’s important that you understand what the threat really is. Are you just being yelled at or mocked? Are people just trying to intimidate or embarrass you? Are they trying to have an actual discussion or just shout over you? Are you outnumbered? Are they threatening to physically attack you? Are they capable of physically attacking you? Are they armed with firearms, items that could be used as bludgeons, or knives? While all of these things may make you angry, if you are not in physical danger, you have to temper your response accordingly. Part of the book is a detailed description of pre-assault indicators that can help you identify a potentially violent encounter before it happens. This goes a long way toward reducing the likelihood of you being injured, killed, or imprisoned due to your response. Here are some key steps to take during a potentially violent encounter. In Miller’s book – which I strongly recommend – he suggests a pattern that begins with simply leaving the situation, to verbal de-escalation when you are not in imminent danger, with other steps all the way up to and including lethal force. He discusses in detail how to rapidly assess your situation to see where you should start. You can find these steps on the internet but they’re not detailed. You should truly read the book to get a deep understanding of them – and you need that now more than ever. This is my personal take on what he wrote. Any mistakes or misinterpretations are mine alone. Presence: The encounter requires your presence and there are two components to this. First, is, don’t be there. Any time you ask Selco and Toby Cowern what you should do in a dangerous situation, their immediate response is “don’t be there.” And that is true of many of the things happening right now. Going to a protest, for example, is automatically putting you at high risk of being involved in a violent encounter. Your second option is to leave the situation. If you find yourself in a scenario in which you could be embroiled in a violent encounter, leave. This is like “don’t be there” but in action form. If you see a crowd gathering up ahead chanting and raising their fists in the air, turn around and go a different way. If you are in a setting in which someone makes you feel uncomfortable, trust your instincts and leave. Don’t talk yourself out of listening to your gut. You’re not being silly. And who cares if you look impolite? (This is especially true for women.) Use your voice. First, you can try to de-escalate the situation. If you can’t avoid it and you can’t leave, verbal de-escalation is your next best bet. This depends heavily upon your understanding of psychology. You want to calm the situation down and one of the best ways to do that is setting up what Miller refers to as a “face-saving exit.” If you are dealing with one member of a crowd, that person will have a lot of personal investment in not being embarrassed in front of his or her friends. You’ll want to think of a way to defuse things while sparing the person from that humiliation. This, of course, sucks, because we all want to kick the butts of someone who is treating us unreasonably. However, your goal is to get away from this encounter without being hurt or killed. If you are alive and uninjured, you’ve won. Your other voice option is a sharp command if you seem like the kind of person who can back this up. Take me, for example, a middle-aged disabled woman with a pink rollator. A command from me is unlikely to have a huge effect on an angry group. However, a command from me backed up by a gun in my hand would be a lot more convincing. (This is something that has actually happened to me – you can read about it here.) Touch. In some situations, touch can be used to de-escalate a conflict. Touch can be soothing, it can help to distract someone fixated on potentially hurting you, and it can help to defuse situations that haven’t gone too far. If you are not stronger than your potential opponent, this should be used very cautiously, as touching them puts you within their reach as well. For many women, this is not going to be a viable option. Physical control. This is another thing that won’t work for everyone. But if it is within your wheelhouse, you might be able to prevent the violence from escalating by physically controlling the attacker. This prevents them from harming you or anyone else around you.  At this point, you’re beginning to get into territory that could have legal consequences.  This is also another thing that may not be particularly viable for women against a male assailant. Use less than lethal force. The next step up the ladder is less than lethal force. This might mean pepper spray, a taser, or a physical blow, to name a few options. This can be a defensive preventative that will work in some cases. If you are able to stun your attacker, it can be the thing that allows you to move back down the ladder to step one – not being there. Physically overpowering an assailant and injuring them to the extent they can no longer hurt you is an option but, again, you’ll very likely face legal consequences unless it is well-witnessed or provable that you had no less violent options. Use lethal force. The final solution in this hierarchy is lethal force. This should not be your first choice unless your life is in imminent danger. You can’t just shoot someone because you decide they “deserve” it or because you feel they’re inflicting an injustice upon you. Well, you can, but you can also expect a trial that will empty out your bank accounts and cause your family to potentially lose their home and any other assets while you finance your defense. Then, if you win, you get to start all over again economically. If you lose, you spend five years to the rest of your life in prison. Lethal force must be legally justified and even then, you can end up suffering immensely for having used it. Again – I strongly recommend you read Rory Miller’s book on this topic, as it is far more detailed than I can be in a quick article and filled with personal anecdotes that make it a very interesting read. You really do have far more options than just killing someone and most of the time, the other options will be better for your future as well as the future of your family. How do you plan to respond to the threat of violence? We’re living in a world where unruly groups of people are spending their evenings out trying to intimidate people who they feel “deserve” it, without actually knowing anything about their targets. Any of us could become a target. Understand that I sincerely believe in the right to armed self-defense. It is our basic human right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. But I urge you to use temperance when making rapid decisions that could have long-term consequences. These aren’t problems with three-second solutions, and to look at them that way is both ignorant and short-sighted. Have you considered how you would respond to the threat of violence? To intimidation by an angry mob? To the looting of your property? It’s good to think these things through ahead of time and consider what your own options are. You’ll need to weigh your personal abilities and limitations against these steps. Remember that your response to potential violence can affect the rest of your life and make your decisions with this in mind. About Daisy Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging author and blogger who’s traded her air miles for a screen porch, having embraced a more homebody lifestyle after a serious injury. She’s the heart and mind behind The Organic Prepper, a top-tier website where she shares what she’s learned about preparedness, self-reliance, and the pursuit of liberty. With 17 books under her belt, Daisy’s insights on living frugally, surviving tough times, finding some happiness in the most difficult situations, and embracing independence have touched many lives. Her work doesn’t just stay on her site; it’s shared far and wide across alternative media, making her a familiar voice in the community. Known for her adventurous spirit, she’s lived in five different countries and raised two wonderful daughters as a single mom.  Daisy is the best-selling author of 5 traditionally published books, 12 self-published books, and runs a small digital publishing company with PDF guides, printables, and courses at SelfRelianceand Survival.com You can find her on Facebook, Pinterest, and X. The post Escalation of Force: How to Choose the Appropriate Response to Potential Violence appeared first on The Organic Prepper.

Dems Doing an About Face on Body Cameras?

43 clumps of debris from Project West Ford remain in orbit today.

A leaked undercover recording has exposed one State Department official saying the quiet part out loud: Demographics determine elections, which is why the powers that be are so focused on changing America’s.“We actually have a guy from the State Department on tape saying, ‘Yeah, this is the purpose of this. This is the Democrats. This is what they’re doing. They’re using the Great Replacement to rig elections. They want the country to be less white because white people vote Republican. White people are conservatives,’” BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre says on “The Auron MacIntyre Show,” before sharing the clip from Project Veritas.In the clip, the State Department official claims that “they want to change the demographics of the United States.”“Project Veritas has an undercover guy speaking with a State Department official, and he comes out and says, ‘Look, it’s really simple. White guys in Nebraska, they’re not leftists. They’re conservatives. They’re naturally conservative,’” MacIntyre explains.“And they’re not going to vote for radical leftist policies. They don’t want it. So, what do you do in a liberal democracy? What do you do if you’re the Democrats and you need to push this radical progressive agenda, but the native population isn’t really interested? And the answer is, you replace them,” he says.“And by the way, this has been the policy of the left for basically ever. They’ve recognized this dynamic for a long time. Leftism cannot win in America. It is not sustainable in America without replacing the population,” he continues.“They want to replace you because of your race,” he adds. “They want to replace you because of the color of your skin.”Want more from Auron MacIntyre?To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist's commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Residents of a previously serene Albuquerque neighborhood are criticizing city officials' response to the surge in crime allegedly related to renters that built an underground bunker.The neighbors say there was a rise in stolen cars, stolen packages, and other nuisances after the newest renters moved in. Some of the incidents have been caught on video.'There was concrete. There were bricks inside. It was pretty large. That was built into the backyard of the house that led into the joining arroyo.' The Esquibels have been in the neighborhood for several years but noticed the change in the last year."We moved here originally because we loved it," Alandra Esquibel said to KOAT-TV. "We thought the location was great."The couple caught one person urinating near their property through surveillance video."You could see them coming in with bags, thuggish and homeless people," Joshua Esquibel said.Police records show that there were nearly 50 calls to the neighborhood in the last year before code enforcement discovered a tunnel leading to an underground bunker."It was a large dug-in tunnel network. It had support structures," said Commander Chris Patterson of the Albuquerque Police Department. "There was concrete. There were bricks inside. It was pretty large. That was built into the backyard of the house that led into the joining arroyo."Police believe the bunker was being used by criminals as a hideout."There's definitely some auto thefts that we've been able to track back to it," Patterson continued. "Some property crimes, porch packages being stolen from porches, luggage items taken from people's cars, so some auto break-ins. And then obviously we think there's probably also a drug nexus as well."Despite all of the incidents, the renters were allowed to stay at the home.The Esquibels and others question why city officials haven't used a provision that allows them to condemn a property that has three criminal acts in the span of three months.RELATED: Transient man pleads guilty to sex crimes against 16-year-old with special needs who was found in his camper after going missing A code enforcement official said the division did not trigger the nuisance ordinance because it did not know about the police calls.The tunnel has been filled in, but the residents worry there will be more crime if the renters aren't moved out."This community is super scared because of the fact that they're still there," Alandra Esquibel said. "Maybe they're renting out the bunker? I have no idea."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Anti-ICE rebels aren’t simply “protesters.” Protest is public dissent: signs, slogans, marches, chants, petitions. It aims to persuade. It does not ram police with cars, swing fists at agents, loot businesses, or try to provoke violence.When anti-ICE activists get detained or arrested, many shout “First Amendment” as if those two words erase everything that happened before the cuffs went on. The First Amendment protects speech, publication, and peaceful assembly. It does not give anyone a license to threaten people, incite lawless action, commit assault, trespass, vandalize property, or participate in criminal conspiracy and intimidation.Clinical language can clarify motives, but it should not excuse crimes.That distinction matters because many of today’s mobs don’t merely “speak.” They physically interfere with law enforcement. They obstruct operations. They harass officers and targets. They try to create fear.We used to teach children to respect the rule of law and the people tasked with enforcing it. Today, many activists treat authority as the enemy by definition, and they feel entitled — sometimes obligated — to attack it.Not every person in a crowd acts from the same motive. Still, the behavior patterns repeat often enough that clinical language can help explain what we’re seeing. I have divided these anti-ICE “rebels” into seven categories — not as formal diagnoses for individuals I have not examined, but as recurring profiles that show up in chaotic group behavior.Trump derangement syndromeSome rebels treat ICE as an extension of President Trump and react accordingly. In my view, this presents as an irrational, disproportionate fixation that can resemble “quasi-psychotic” hostility toward anything associated with Trump — spilling over to people and institutions that have little to do with him, including federal agents doing their jobs.Celebrity worship syndromeSome activists take cues from entertainers and influencers and translate slogans into action. This is an obsessive-addictive disorder more than mere fandom. Celebrity messaging can nudge fans from passive agreement to performative activism, especially when the cultural reward system prizes outrage. Public denunciations from stars can energize followers who want to prove loyalty through escalating conduct.Mad hattersSome participants display the impulsivity, defiance, and hostility toward authority that clinicians associate with oppositional-defiant disorder or conduct disorder. In its more destructive form, the behavior resembles conduct-disorder traits: aggression, property destruction, and contempt for basic social rules.Lost soulsSome people arrive lonely, purposeless, or adrift. A mob offers identity, belonging, and a mission. The cause becomes a substitute for meaning, and the group’s adrenaline becomes a substitute for inner stability.Regressed riotersSome adults regress under stress and excitement into adolescent defiance — or younger. Think “terrible twos.” They seek confrontation, throw verbal tantrums, and act on impulse, not reason. They perform outrage as if outrage itself justifies whatever follows.Mr. and Mrs. PersonalityCertain personality disorders show up frequently in chaotic movements: paranoia, grandiosity, emotional volatility, hostility, and disregard for others’ rights. These traits can thrive in crowds because the crowd rewards extremity and dilutes individual accountability.Substance abusersAlcohol and drugs lower inhibition and increase risk-taking. For some, a riot becomes a party with a political soundtrack — an excuse to seek thrills while claiming a moral cause.RELATED: ‘How low can they go?’ Maryland Democrat seeks to punish Trump-era ICE agents for doing their job Getty ImagesThese categories help explain how a crowd can form so quickly, swing into panic, and turn predatory. People mirror each other. They feed on fear and moral fervor. They swarm, then strike.Clinical language can clarify motives, but it should not excuse crimes. Anyone who assaults officers, obstructs enforcement, destroys property, or threatens people should face arrest, prosecution, and due process. Speech receives protection; violence does not.ICE agents enforce federal law. They face danger, hostility, and organized intimidation. A society that treats mob coercion as “protest” abandons the rule of law — and endangers everyone.

If you want to see where contemporary speech regulation leads, look to Britain.My country, the birthplace of the common law tradition and parliamentary liberty, now arrests thousands of its citizens each year for “offensive” speech. Much of what Americans still debate as hypothetical has already hardened into policy here.While commentators work to enforce elite consensus, perceptions of two-tier policing have fueled public anger.This did not happen overnight, nor did it require a dramatic constitutional rupture. It emerged gradually, through well-intentioned laws, bureaucratic definitions, and institutional habits that now govern what may be said, by whom and about whom. For Americans who assume such restrictions could never survive contact with the First Amendment, Britain offers a sobering corrective. Catalog of grievanceThe roots of this crisis can be traced to the Equality Act 2010, which laid the groundwork for today’s restrictions on speech. The act provides a legal definition of “protected characteristics,” making it unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of attributes such as sex or race.The act outlines core areas — race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and gender reassignment — which form the foundation of modern hate-crime legislation. Crimes deemed to be motivated by prejudice or hostility toward individuals with these characteristics can result in longer prison sentences. Yet because prejudice and discrimination are inherently subjective and difficult to quantify, hate-crime legislation erodes the principle of equality before the law.In total, there are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Although not all meet the legal threshold for hate crime, these categories are embedded across workplace training, education, and public services. Institutionalizing them frames certain groups as uniquely vulnerable to harm, encouraging institutions to treat speech as a risk to be managed rather than a liberty to be protected, and confers a durable victim identity. Through the lens of identity politics, victimhood becomes a proxy for moral authority. Unsurprisingly this logic expands rather than contracts. Campaigns to add further protected traits — such as menopause, misogyny, or afro hair — reflect a constantly growing catalog of grievance.12,000 arrests a yearThis mindset has enabled some of the most restrictive internet-speech enforcement in the Western world. Each year, roughly 12,000 Britons are arrested for online communications deemed “offensive.” In widely reported cases, individuals have received custodial sentences for social-media posts seen by only a handful of people, or have been arrested for deliberately provocative but nonviolent acts. In another case, a man received a lengthy prison sentence for possessing music classified by authorities as “right-wing.” The cumulative effect has been chilling: Free expression now exists largely at the discretion of the state.Even when not explicitly codified, the logic of victimhood drives these censorious impulses. Nowhere is this clearer than in the evolving concept of Islamophobia — a concept that Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, has pledged to “reform.”With opinion polls faltering, Starmer finds himself electorally dependent on a sizable Muslim voting bloc. He must reassure the public that Britain remains a liberal democracy — one in which citizens are free to criticize, offend, and mock religion. The state’s response has been semantic rather than substantive. Islamophobia is now being reframed as “anti-Muslim hatred,” defined in draft guidance as:Engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation — whether physical, verbal, written, or electronic — directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim because of their religion, ethnicity, or appearance. Although this definition is non-statutory and not legally binding, it is likely to encourage further self-censorship around legitimate discussion of Islam. A similar effect followed the adoption of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia. The Labour Party and numerous public bodies — including more than 50 local councils, some governing Muslim-majority areas such as Bradford, Birmingham, Rochdale, and Leicester — have adopted it.RELATED: Pakistani cousin marriage has no place in UK Bloomberg/Getty ImagesHiding behind 'Islamophobia'These same regions have long faced serious criminal scandals, including the sexual abuse of young girls by grooming gangs disproportionately composed of men of Pakistani origin. Official inquiries have documented how institutional reluctance to address these crimes — often citing fear of being perceived as “Islamophobic” — contributed to prolonged failures of safeguarding.As someone who has written extensively about the cultural practice of cousin marriage, I must ask: Does pointing out the well-documented link between consanguinity and elevated risk of congenital disorders now qualify as “hostility”?Rather than encouraging honest debate, further definitional expansion risks reinforcing institutional silence. In recent years, National Health Service materials have presented first-cousin marriage in notably neutral or positive terms, while academic journals have warned that criticism of female genital mutilation can shade into racism — sometimes proposing euphemistic language in place of the word “mutilation” itself.This kind of top-down enforcement rarely sits well with voters. Public frustration grows when large numbers of young male asylum seekers are housed in already strained cities, while criticism of immigration policy is constrained by speech codes. No amount of central planning can engineer a harmonious multicultural society. Rebranding Islamophobia as “anti-Muslim hostility” will not resolve these tensions. It instead grants the state wider discretion to interpret — and restrict — speech.Expansion of civil claimsThe revised guidance goes further, characterizing anti-Muslim hostility as “the prejudicial stereotyping and racialization of Muslims as a collective group with set characteristics.” Like all attempts to police expression, the language is subjective and elastic. What happens if one agrees with MI5 that Islamist terrorism represents the most significant national-security threat? Or if one cites court data showing disproportionate Muslim representation in grooming-gang convictions?The guidance also gestures toward institutional liability, warning against the “creation or use of practices and biases within institutions.” This invites an expansion of HR enforcement and civil claims based on indirect discrimination. Recent employment-tribunal cases — some involving substantial settlements for “injury to feelings” — illustrate how these standards already operate in practice.Britain already restricts expression where Islam is concerned. Although blasphemy laws were formally repealed in England and Wales in 2008, they continue to function de facto. In one recent case, a man who burned a Quran was charged with “offending the religious institution of Islam” — an offense unknown to statute. (He later won on appeal.) When prosecution proceeds on improvised grounds, it is not difficult to imagine future cases brought under the banner of “anti-Muslim hostility.”This is the endpoint of multiculturalism: ad hoc speech regulations shaped by cultural sensitivities and sustained by mass immigration. While commentators work to enforce elite consensus, perceptions of two-tier policing have fueled public anger.There should be no such thing as a hate crime — only crime. Conditions are likely to worsen before they improve. Open borders and cultural relativism have become default assumptions across much of the West, yet they sit uneasily with the rule of law and freedom of expression.If you want to see where contemporary speech regulation leads, look to Britain. Americans would be wise to do so while these questions are still debated in theory — rather than enforced in practice.

Somali pirates. Dead people “billing” taxpayers. Foreign terror networks thriving on Medicaid scams. Hackers stealing identities to collect benefits.That lineup sounds like an over-the-top Hollywood heist movie. Americans now read versions of it on the front page.Americans should treat this caper as a wake-up call. Elected leaders should treat it as an emergency.Federal prosecutors charged 78 Somali immigrants with allegedly stealing more than $1 billion from taxpayers. National outlets noticed, including the see-no-immigrant-evil New York Times. Prosecutors also say suspected Medicaid fraud in Minnesota may top $9 billion, with new allegations and evidence surfacing by the day.Hollywood can’t compete with numbers like that. In “Die Hard,” the crooks chased $640 million. Danny Ocean’s crew in “Ocean’s 11” made off with a mere $160 million. Minnesota’s real-life scammers allegedly went after far more, and they exploited programs meant to help the vulnerable.Americans should treat this caper as a wake-up call. Elected leaders should treat it as an emergency: Prosecute the thieves, close the loopholes, and change the incentives that let fraudsters treat public benefits like an ATM.For perspective, the fraud under investigation approaches the size of Somalia’s entire government budget and equals roughly 12% of Somalia’s economy, based on recent estimates. Minnesota’s Somali population equals about 0.5% of Somalia’s population and about 2.5% of the Twin Cities metro. Yet prosecutors say a small number of people allegedly moved sums that rival major industries back home.Worse, investigators say some stolen money went overseas. In the Feeding Our Future case and related investigations, federal prosecutors have alleged that some proceeds flowed to al-Shabaab, a terrorist group the United States has targeted for years. If those allegations hold, taxpayers didn’t just fund fraud. They helped bankroll an enemy.Minnesota’s scandal also exposes a national contradiction. Washington wages war abroad, welcomes refugees at home, and writes checks through the same federal programs that criminals can exploit — while the national debt nears $39 trillion.Minnesota’s political class added its own layer of absurdity. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D) built a profitable career calling America racist. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) delivered his re-election victory speech in Somali just days before the scope of these cases made headlines. Symbolic gestures came easy. Basic oversight did not.Gov. Tim Walz (D) still owes voters answers. Did incompetence drive this disaster, or did indifference do the work? Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem argues both played a role. Reports now suggest state employees blew the whistle years ago about lax controls and sloppy management. Voters heard little of it when elections still hung in the balance.RELATED: Trump has the chance to end the welfare free-for-all Minnesota exposed Photo by: Michael Siluk/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesWalz reportedly knew about major fraud risks as early as 2020. His administration later resumed funding after recipients sued, accusing the state of racism. The Walz administration also handed an “outstanding refugee award” in 2021 to a woman now charged in connection with fraud — facts that undercut today’s alibis.Federal investigators deserve credit. The Departments of Justice and Treasury have pursued these cases aggressively. House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has opened another congressional probe. Prosecutions matter, but prevention matters more.A new law President Trump signed this summer aims to make fraud more difficult to pull off. It requires states to recheck eligibility for able-bodied adults on Medicaid every six months instead of annually. For the first time, it also forces states to absorb more of the cost when they let fraud run rampant.Those reforms should move quickly from paper to practice. States, red and blue, should implement them immediately. Fraudsters thrive on delay, confusion, and political excuses.Taxpayer fraud deserves full prosecution. Political leaders who enable it deserve accountability too — whether they turned a blind eye, ignored whistleblowers, or refused to enforce the law. Every state in the Union should move now, or Minnesota’s scandal will spread.