Exposing the Grift: Minnesota's Child Welfare Fraud and the Psychology of Deflection
- Charles "Ghost" Coutts
- Jan 1
- 10 min read
Before you shoot the messenger, it helps to get the message first. — Abram Gitspof
(Opinion)
In Minnesota, a web of fraud schemes has siphoned over $1.2 billion from programs meant to nourish, treat, and care for vulnerable children since 2018. What began as isolated red flags—fake meal sites, phantom therapy sessions, empty daycares—has unraveled into one of the largest COVID-era scandals, with federal indictments exposing organized misconduct. But beyond the dollars lost lies a deeper story: how public responses, particularly deflections and selective accusations of bias, shield perpetrators while silencing calls for accountability. This isn't just financial crime; it's a psychological playbook that manipulates discourse, inverting priorities and protecting grifters at the expense of society's most vulnerable—the children. By examining the facts, reactions, and underlying tactics, we reveal how such manipulation thrives and how to counter it.
Let's get one thing clear from the start. There is only one most vulnerable group in our society, and that is our children. If you disagree, you might as well go ahead and leave now.
The Facts:
Systematic Fraud Targeting Children's Programs
Federal and state investigations have documented patterns of abuse in key social services:
Feeding Our Future Scheme: A nonprofit founded in 2016 claimed to feed children via USDA programs but submitted fraudulent reimbursements for millions of nonexistent meals. FBI raids in 2022 confirmed minimal distribution, with only 3% of funds spent on food. 78 indicted, over 50 guilty pleas, seven trial convictions (including founder Aimee Bock). Stolen: $250 million; recovered: $75 million.
Autism Services Fraud (EIDBI): Providers billed Medicaid for undelivered therapy, using kickbacks and false diagnoses. Billing surged from $1.2 million (2017) to $228 million (2024). Asha Farhan Hassan charged for $14 million scheme; six more indicted. 29 centers probed. Suspected loss: $200+ million.
Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP): Centers billed $2.5–$4 million annually despite no children present. 62 under probe; HHS froze payments nationwide in December 2025. Part of the broader $1.2 billion estimate.
Other Frauds: Medicaid home services (three charged); housing stabilization (eight indicted). Total convictions: 59+; recoveries <30%. FBI calls it the "tip of a very large iceberg."
Indictments focus on actions, not origins, though patterns involve Somali-linked individuals. Similar probes in Washington and Oregon target comparable setups, but no matching indictments yet.
The attempted spin.
"Always accuse your opponent of what you are guilty of as you are doing it to create confusion." The individuals turning this into an issue about Somalis as a group are these people. From our perspective on the right, the identity of the perpetrators is secondary; they could be anyone. Our anger stems from the fraud targeting vulnerable members of society, particularly our children, not from the ethnicity or skin color of those committing the acts. It's these individuals who are racializing the situation, which ultimately only serves to shield the wrongdoers and further exploit the children. I have not heard one person on the right blaming ALL Somalis for the actions of these criminals. The left are the only people I hear saying that. You should be questioning why this is happening. Just saying.
Oh yeah, keep in mind that these are the same people who think every white person today should be held accountable for what other white people did 300 years ago. Oh what a ta
Historical Marxist Views on Crime, Prisons, and Societal Conflict
**The Pattern:** Marxist texts portray crime as a byproduct of class struggle under capitalism, arguing that prisons serve as tools to suppress the working class rather than rehabilitate it. Karl Marx critiqued capital punishment as a system that perpetuates crime by failing to address root causes like poverty. He suggested that society "makes room" for new criminals without implementing meaningful reforms.
Emma Goldman, in her anarchist works archived in Marxist resources, described prisons as a "social crime and failure," claiming they exacerbate issues instead of resolving them. Marxist criminology views laws as protections for the ruling class, with criminals often seen as victims of systemic inequality.
In summary, a key aspect of Marxist theory has always been the notion that "blame lies with others." Although these theories propose that social conditions influence criminal behavior, it is crucial to acknowledge that breaking the law is ultimately a deliberate decision, meaning any resulting consequences fall on the individual. Marxism offers an excuse, and those who accept it become influenced by Marxist ideology. Marxists can rationalize any situation because if things go wrong, they simply assign blame elsewhere.
While no explicit Marxist directive calls for the deliberate release of criminals with the sole intention of "creating chaos," the broader framework of Marxist ideology does indeed emphasize the role of conflict, particularly through the lens of dialectical materialism, as a fundamental driver of societal change. This philosophical approach posits that history progresses through the resolution of contradictions inherent within society. In this context, if the existing contradictions within a society are not visibly apparent or if the populace appears complacent, revolutionaries might actively seek to highlight or even amplify these contradictions. The goal is to mobilize the masses and inspire them to recognize their shared grievances, which can catalyze revolutionary action.
Historical examples vividly illustrate this point, particularly in the aftermath of the Bolshevik policies following the 1917 Russian Revolution. In the early days of Bolshevism, there was a concerted effort to reform the prison system and, in some instances, to empty prisons as a means of dismantling the oppressive structures of the tsarist regime. This was part of a broader revolutionary agenda aimed at creating a new social order based on equality and the overthrow of class hierarchies. However, this approach was not without its consequences. The rapid release of prisoners, many of whom were hardened criminals or individuals who had committed serious offenses, led to significant instability in various regions of Russia. The resulting chaos, characterized by increased crime and social disorder, raised questions about the effectiveness and wisdom of such radical reforms.
As the situation in the country deteriorated, it became evident that the initial revolutionary fervor was not enough to maintain order and stability. This period of turmoil eventually paved the way for Joseph Stalin's rise to power, who implemented a series of repressive measures aimed at consolidating control over the state and society. Critics of this historical trajectory argue that the initial policies of releasing criminals and reforming the prison system can be interpreted as a strategy that inadvertently aligned with the notion of manufacturing chaos. By destabilizing the existing order, the Bolsheviks may have created conditions that justified the subsequent imposition of authoritarian control under Stalin.
This critique raises important questions about the relationship between revolutionary ideology and the practical realities of governance. It suggests that while the pursuit of social justice and equality is a noble goal, the methods employed to achieve such aims can have unintended consequences, sometimes leading to the very oppression that revolutionaries sought to eradicate. Furthermore, the manipulation of social contradictions, whether through the release of prisoners or other means, can be seen as a tactic that not only seeks to galvanize support for revolutionary change but also risks perpetuating cycles of chaos and repression that undermine the foundational principles of justice and equality.
In summary, while Marxist ideology does not explicitly advocate for the creation of chaos through the release of criminals, the historical application of such strategies reveals a complex interplay between revolutionary aspirations and the harsh realities of social upheaval. The lessons drawn from these historical examples continue to inform contemporary discussions about the balance between revolutionary change and the maintenance of social order, as well as the ethical implications of using chaos as a means to an end in the pursuit of a more equitable society.
Create or amplify the problem, create and control the response to that problem, and then offer the solution to the problem, which always leads to violent revolution. It's a well-known grift, a con job, a psychological manipulation pure and simple.
Modern Patterns:
Left-Leaning Reforms and Accusations of Siding with Criminals
We have revealed the pattern in the past; let's expose the pattern today. Progressive criminal justice reforms—such as bail elimination, reduced sentencing, and prison population reductions—are criticized for increasing crime and chaos. Examples include:
New York Bail Reform (2019): Eliminated cash bail for most misdemeanors and non-violent felonies. Critics link it to a 22.5% crime spike by 2020, with released offenders committing 800 new crimes. Republicans blame Democrats for rising violence, while defenders argue reforms don't drive crime trends.
California Proposition 47 (2014): Reclassified some felonies as misdemeanors, leading to early releases. Critics cite increased theft and homelessness-related chaos; San Francisco saw shoplifting surges.
COVID-19 Releases: Nationwide, over 100,000 inmates were released early to reduce virus spread. In some areas, reoffending rates rose, fueling "soft-on-crime" critiques.
Defund the Police Movement: Post-2020, cities like Minneapolis cut police budgets, correlated with homicide spikes (e.g., 57% rise in 2021). Senator Marco Rubio accused left-wing policies of making communities less safe by releasing criminals.
From the left's perspective, these reforms address mass incarceration, racial disparities, and root causes like poverty—echoing Marxist views of crime as societal failure. Critics, however, argue they prioritize offenders over victims, creating chaos that erodes public trust and advances ideological goals. X discussions amplify this: Posts accuse Democrats of siding with criminals in cases like Memphis National Guard deployments or DC homicides, framing it as treasonous or anti-victim.
Tying to Minnesota:
Deflection as Modern Chaos Creation
This pattern reflects Minnesota's continuous reaction against fraud, especially within welfare and child support programs. Recent debates have seen left-leaning responses diverting criticism by citing racism and Islamophobia, strategically aligning themselves in a way that defends the fraudsters—those who misuse child programs—while ignoring the real victims: the children who are cheated out of crucial resources and support. Personally, that makes me really angry!
By racializing the scrutiny of these fraudulent activities, a narrative is constructed that serves to manufacture unnecessary conflict within society. This tactic not only distracts from the critical issue at hand—namely, the exploitation of vulnerable children—but also effectively divides communities. Such division hampers the pursuit of justice, as it shifts the focus from accountability for the fraudsters to a broader societal debate about race and discrimination. This aligns with my point about creating chaos where none exists; rather than addressing the real problem of fraud, the discourse becomes mired in identity politics.
And the children continue to be victimized.
Moreover, the fear of being labeled as racist or Islamophobic can have a chilling effect on whistleblowers and those who might otherwise come forward with information about fraudulent activities. This fear prolongs the harm being done to vulnerable children, as it discourages individuals from reporting suspicious behavior or advocating for necessary reforms. The reluctance to speak out stems from the potential backlash that could arise from challenging the narratives that have been constructed around these issues.
What is it called when you use fear and intimidation to continue a criminal enterprise again? Oh yeah, RICO. It is what they used to bring down the "Mob" so...
Governor Tim Walz's responses to the situation further illustrate this pattern of deflection. For instance, he often touts past crackdowns on fraud as evidence of his administration's commitment to justice while simultaneously blaming others for the current state of affairs. This approach not only seeks to shift responsibility away from his administration but also prioritizes the maintenance of a favorable narrative over genuine accountability for the systemic failures that allow fraud to persist. Meaning more innocent and vulnerable children are being exploited.
In essence, the interplay of these dynamics creates an environment where the needs of the most vulnerable—children who are victims of fraud—are overshadowed by political maneuvering and the fear of social repercussions. The focus on identity politics detracts from the urgent need to address and rectify the exploitation of child programs, ultimately stalling any meaningful progress toward justice and support for those who truly need it.
Public Responses: A Partisan Divide
Reactions to exposures highlight stark contrasts. Left-leaning voices often pivot to bias concerns, while right-leaning voices demand unyielding justice.
Left-Leaning Statements | Right-Leaning Statements |
Gov. Tim Walz: "Fraud is fraud," but "White people commit crimes too." | Rep. Kristin Robbins (R): Walz ignored warnings; demands resignation. |
CNN: Shirley's work "racist," "xenophobic." | Fox News: Media avoided exposure due to racism fears. |
NPR: Shirley has an "anti-Muslim" history. | Rep. Dave Baker (R): Fraud is an "avalanche"; urges probes. |
Politico: Probes linked to "racism." | Stephen Miller: "No one above the law." |
Who is it that is racialising this again?
This divide underscores selective outrage: Accusations of racism/Islamophobia surge when certain groups face scrutiny, but similar defenses are absent in fraud cases involving other demographics.
Deflection Tactics:
The Psychology Behind Protection
Deflection—redirecting attention away from uncomfortable truths—is a well-known defense mechanism used to avoid feelings of guilt or anxiety. In politics, it appears as whataboutism (e.g., "White people commit crimes too") or projection, shifting the conversation to maintain power. Walz is an example of this: He boasts about "years cracking down on fraud" while blaming Trump, which overlooks why these schemes grew during his tenure. These tactics obscure the truth, similar to the spin on the Afghanistan withdrawal: Emphasizing the "largest air rescue" shifts focus away from the Americans left behind and the 13 deaths.
Psychologically, this behavior arises from partisan bias, where discomfort leads to redirection. In Minnesota, it shields fraudsters targeting children, prioritizing narratives over the victims.
Selective Accusations:
When Bias Claims Become a Shield
Accusations of racism or Islamophobia are deployed selectively, often in partisan media to prime views and vilify critics. This "racialized disinformation" targets discourse on issues like CRT or fraud, branding scrutiny as white identity politics. Yet, in fraud cases like PPP scams or health care busts involving non-minority groups, such defenses vanish—no cries of bias, just prosecutions.
This inconsistency reveals the tactic: Race matters only to those weaponizing it. True racists insist on racializing everything, suppressing accountability. In child fraud, it inverts logic—protecting predators because of their background, not despite it.
The Moral Imperative: Children First, Always
Children are society's most vulnerable; psychology shows prioritizing them builds healthy adults. Exploiting them—stealing from autistic kids or starving the hungry—marks the lowest depravity, regardless of skin color or origins. Defending such acts through deflection makes enablers complicit, cowards fearing labels over harm. Historically, child threats unified responses; now, fear of names silences us, serving children on a platter.
If roles were reversed—white-led fraud defrauding minority children—outrage would be swift, without bias shields. This disparity isn't about race; it's manipulation turning protection upside down.
Empowering Change: From Exposure to Action
It begins and ends with you. Tools exist to spot grift—trace funds, question deflections—but you must use them. Positive "manipulation" (reframing tactics for truth) counters negative versions, creating awareness chains.
What does it say about our society when we prioritize the rights and feelings of child predators over the well-being of our children?
The question that repeatedly arises in my mind is why? Why do those on the left, specifically the Marxists/collectivists, also known as progressives, consistently side with criminals over you, me, and everyone they promised to represent faithfully? The situation in Minnesota is not an "AHA!" moment, but rather another link in a long chain of deceit carried out by the same individuals, right under the government's nose, which is supposed to prevent such occurrences or ideally stop them before they start. Minnesota is proving to be the tip of a very big iceberg that they don't want us looking at, so they call us racists, etc.
Here is the thing, though. That card has been used way too often; it doesn't work so well anymore. People don't just shut up! We are asking very uncomfortable questions that need to be answered.
The more a topic is deemed "off limits," the more we should discuss it until there's no longer a justification for it to remain "off limits." Deflection prevents that, but only if we let it.
Something to think about, until next time. ~Ghost
Now this man is being targeted. Not for doing anything wrong, but for exposing wrongdoing.
Comments