Did She Really Marry Her Brother?

Well, ladies and gentlemen, in politics, I mean, in life in general, but especially in politics,

there's no shortage of crazy outlandish claims going around about people, what they've done,

what they've failed to do, et cetera, et cetera. And a lot of them can be dismissed.

A lot of them can be dismissed, which is kind of crazy stuff. But then the more you look

into this question about Ilhan Omar and did she really marry her brother? Because that sounds crazy.

That sounds bizarre. And you've had a ton of people taking Donald Trump to task for it,

taking other people to task for it. It's another one of those conspiracy theories. And look,

let's all be honest, the people peddling conspiracy theories, their scores looking a little bit

better than usual over the last several years. But I think it's important. I think it's important

to look at a claim like this and say, okay, is it true? Is there any validity to this? What's so

ever? So we're going to look at it empirically. We're going to look at empirically. We're going to

look at the evidence that we're going to try to determine. Is there a case to be made that Ilhan

Omar deliberately engaged in immigration fraud for who? And then we're going to ask this question

about like, okay, if it's true, can or should she be denaturalized? And we're going to go through

this whole process of what is a look to actually go through the process of denaturalization? Because

it doesn't happen very often. And so that's what we're going to do today. We're going to look at the

claims. We're going to look at the evidence. We're going to try to come to a conclusion about what

actually happened or if there is sufficient evidence. And then we're going to talk about just

what happens next? Because I do think this. I think most Americans once upon a time would have

looked at all this and said, oh, who cares? Who cares? Well, now people care a little bit more.

We care a little bit more because this problem has become bigger and bigger as time has gone on with

respect to lack of immigration laws with respect to no border security enforcement. And I think

especially with Ilhan Omar, the thing that frustrates a lot of us is when we look at all of these

examples of Ilhan Omar, you know, forced to clarify after Democrats say she equated US and

Israel with terrorists. Or of course, we have the time where in a bizarre clip she jokes about

people saying al-Qaeda and a menacing tone when we don't talk about other places that way.

Or how about the part where Ilhan Omar got up there and said that we are turning into the worst

countries on earth. And then of course, we cannot forget the time where she was making comments

about 9-11 and she just flippantly referred to it as, well, some people did a thing, right? And then

of course, when we get to the state of the United Address, we all remember, we all remember that one

year when what's his name from South Carolina shattered out you lie. That was it. That was all

shut it out. It was you lying. It shut it to Barack Obama. And it was the most horrible, racist,

lack of decorum thing we had ever witnessed in our entire lives. And how could a member of Congress

do something like this to a president as they gave the state of the United Address? And now we're

regularly, regularly, and treated it stuff like this. There we go. And you should be ashamed of

all the time. All the time, right? You can almost guarantee that if something kind of crazy and

outlandish as being said, Ilhan Omar is probably either saying it or she's adjacent, right? It's

another member of the squad. And so this has got a lot of people starting to ask the question.

It's like, okay, if Ilhan Omar did actually participate in immigration fraud, if she did that,

why can't she be denaturalized? Why can't she be deported? Because through a lot of us, it looks

like she doesn't really have any love for the United States, right? Now, let's understand something.

Not having love for the United States is not necessarily reason to be deported in and of itself,

at least from a legal standpoint, you have to actually do other things. So theoretically,

you can come to this country, you can, you can, you can flee your own war torn country, come to

the United States, seek refuge, become a citizen, and then hate the United States all you want.

But a lot of us are getting a little bit frustrated with a member of Congress. It seems to always

side with everybody but America and who seems to prioritize whatever's good for Somalia,

over what's good for the United States. And then you add on top of that, all these allegations

with respect to immigration fraud. And that has a lot of people asking the question. You know what,

if she hates it here so much, she doesn't like this country. And oh, by the way, if she's actually

participating in a legal activity, why can't we investigate that? Is it because she's a member of

Congress? Is it because we're constantly told that if she, if she ranks higher on the intersectional

scale, then we're not allowed to ask these questions. What is it? What is it? And today, we're going

to get to that. We're going to actually delve into the specifics. But before I do that, I want to

do a shout out to our friends over at Lear Capital because here's the bottom line. Gold is like

it all time highs right now. And most of us are like, okay, that's cool, but I don't trade with

gold a lot these days. Sure, but you still want to know why gold is so high, right? Because

governments are addicted to printing money. And the bad news is, is no matter who's in charge,

Republicans are Democrats, money printer, money printer, go burr, right? And that ends up decreasing

the value of our individual dollars. And a lot of times they're doing this in order to prop up

the stock market. Now, listen, is it a good idea to invest in stocks? Sure, if you do it wisely,

right? I'm not giving you specific stock investment, but I will say this. Here's one thing the government

can't print more of. Gold and silver. And that's where Lear Capital comes into play because they

can give you all the information you need to learn more about how this works. Maybe you just want

gold and silver because you want to have something of value that you can have in your physical

possession and you're safe at home. Great. Lear can tell you how to do that. Maybe you want to

roll it into your IRA or your 401k. Because again, like 10 years ago, gold was trading at about

$1,100 an ounce. And now it's predicted to go over 5,000 in a relatively short period of time.

That's significant. That's significant. So all you got to do to get started to learn more is

call Lear Capital now at 800-707-4575. That's 800-707-4575 or visit Nick4Lear.com. That's Nick,

the number four lear.com, to get your free information guide and see how you can qualify for up to $20,000

in bonus gold or silver with a qualified purchase, right? So go over there, call them out. Again,

one of the great things about these guys. I'm not trying to push you to do a bunch of stuff. You're

not interested in doing. They want you to be educated on it and then make an educated decision. So

go over to Lear Capital, check them out, and let's get into the details here. All right, so

where does this whole thing start from? It's like, okay, well, the allegation about U.S.

Ilhan Omar, representative Ilhan Omar, is that she married her brother,

Ahmed Nur said, it'll mean. I'm going to screw up all the pronunciations I apologize.

And the Center's on claims of immigration fraud to expedite his entry or legal status in the

United States, because while Omar has repeatedly denied the claim, calling it absurd and offensive,

there's been no definitive evidence like DNA test or official birth records that is confirmed

to sibling relationship, right? Nothing in that case. Critics point to a series of circumstantial

details, timelines and discrepancies that they argue suggest the 2009 legal marriage was a

sham arrangement. And that this could have allowed Elmi, right? Again, her alleged brother, a

British citizen at the time, to benefit from spousal immigration preferences under U.S. law,

which prioritizes spouses over siblings for green cards and citizenship. Okay, so if her name is

is, you know, Omar, and his name is Elmi, well, okay, different last names. What's the deal? Why

are we doing this? Well, Omar's father is named Nur said, following Somali naming conventions,

where children often incorporate paternal names. Elmi's full name is Ahmed Nur said Elmi. And that

aligns with this pattern, right? Implying that he could be a son of Nur said and thus Omar's brother.

Now again, that seems pretty light in and of itself, but let's let's continue. Omar arrived in the U.S.

in 1995 as a refugee under the Omar family asylum grant, but critics alleged this was fraudulent

and that her true family name is Elmi, same as this other guy. Meanwhile, other members of her

genetic family, including an alleged brother, sister, Leah, and Mohammed Elmi received asylum

in the United Kingdom around the same time. This split raises questions about why Elmi might need a

marital pathway to the U.S. if you were not family as siblings, petitions exist, but are slower. Okay,

now this kind of goes in the next part here because there was a story done on this several years back

by the Center for Immigration Studies. And here's what they said on this. I'm going to go and

bring it up right now. They said we wrote about an earlier chapter of this saga two years ago when

she was about to be elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives. What we have here is a story

about a successful young woman who has put together what may be immigration-related marriage fraud

by adroitly using a combination of U.S. law to get presumably a green card fill, Elmi,

the ongoing chaos in Somalia, which she says eliminated the possibility of obtaining

birth certificates for herself or her alleged brother. Traditional marriages and divorce

unrecorded with the authorities when they met her or her alleged brother's needs and a huge

dollop of luck, right? The luck includes a substantial amount of governmental non-curiosity.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in the last year of the Obama administration, according to the AP

story, said it was not investigating the marriage fraud charges that might be attributed to political

tilt. So again, this is one of those cases where when somebody is gaining steam in a political

campaign or whatnot, instead of additional scrutiny, they start to do this thing where it's like,

well, we're not going to investigate this because we think it's just a campaign trick that they're

trying to use in order to, you know, say bad things about her. Okay. Well, interestingly enough,

when it comes to the issue of finally joint married tax returns, right? Here's one of the things

that she did. And this report comes from CBS News. Ilhan Omar finds herself at the center of

controversy about her personal tax returns. The campaign finance board discovered she filed

tax returns stating she was married to one man. When, in fact, she was married to another.

The revelation was part of an investigation and allegations that Omar had misused campaign funds.

Omar agreed to repay $3,500 and pay $500.00. But the controversy over her tax filing

continues. When it comes to the issue of filing joint married tax returns with one man,

well, legally married to another, the only statement the Minnesota Congressman has made is through

a campaign spokesman. All of them rep Omar's tax funds are fully compliant with all the

political tax law. The spokesman said below is a timeline of Omar's personal relationships,

as well as the campaign finance board documents. In the early 2000s, Omar and Ahmed Hersey had two

children but never married. So they had this kind of Islamic marriage where essentially they're

married before God, right? They're married in Islam, but they're not legally married. In 2009,

Omar legally married another man, Ahmed Elmi. In 2011, Omar and Elmi obtained a faith-based divorce

but no legal divorce. In 2012, Omar reconciles with Hersey and the couple had a third child.

2014 and 2015, Omar and Hersey filed joint married returns. 2016, Omar's attorney

accounts find something needs to be corrected in Omar's filing. 2017, Omar files for divorce from

Elmi. So again, files for divorce from Elmi in 2017. So you see this thing right here? It's a

faith-based divorce, not a legal divorce. 2018 Omar legally marries Hersey. Now, by the way,

they've gotten divorced since then, right? But you see this timeline, it seems a little bit suspect.

It seems a little bit suspect and this takes me into this article from The Washington Free Beacon

where they're very confident about this. They say, yes, Ilhan Omar married her brother, okay?

Let's go ahead and take a look at the evidence. President Donald Trump, this was by the way,

it's December 12, 2025. President Donald Trump is an occasional practitioner of unsparing form

of political logic, having taken an interest in the mass of public programs fraud committed by an

almost exclusively Somali cast of perpetrators in Minnesota. He was followed up with unfriendly

comments on Minnesota's fifth district rep, Ilhan Omar. She comes in, does nothing but complain.

She's always complaining. The president told a crowd at and mount a Pocono Pennsylvania on Tuesday.

We had to get her the hell out. She married her brother in order to get in, right? She married

her brother. Can you imagine if Donald Trump married his sister? And then this is where we go into

the problem. Omar is Somali fraud exhibit A and her district was the center of gravity and the

massive feeding our future fraud case that this guy wrote about in the Washington free beacon in March.

Despite what you may think, Omar has made a valuable contribution to our history. She goes to show

that there's such a thing as a new kind of political scandal. Mark Twain famously observed it

could probably be shown by facts and figures that there's no distinctively native American criminal

classics, except Congress, and he hadn't even met Omar. I'm talking about Omar's marriage to her

brother, Ahmed Nur said, Elmey, Trump may have garbled the specifics, but he got the upshot of

the story right. Omar's family brought Elmey over from London around 2002 to try to extract him

from a gay lifestyle. And that is the context in which the congressman tied the knot with him.

The gay lifestyle. Okay, yeah, I'm buying that. I'm buying that. That checks out with the picture.

I started writing about Omar for Powerline, the website to which I am an original contributor in

August 2016, when she defeated 22 term incumbent and feminist heroine Phyllis Khan in the Democratic

farmer labor primary for a seat in the Minnesota state legislature. A reader had directed me to a post

on a message board called Somali spot, which had since been removed from the internet. It asserted

that Omar had married her husband, Ahmed Hersey, and the father of her children. They've got three

children together in 2002, but that she had then married her brother, Ahmed Nur said Elmey in 2009.

Her campaign website advertiser, Hersey, as her husband, and made no mention of Elmey. So you

see what's going on here, right? It's this tricky thing between like, well, Islamic marriages versus

legal marriages. But there's also this question of, okay, why is she doing this? Like, if she literally

has an Islamic marriage and theoretically, I'm guessing from Muslims, that should be every bit is

important and every bit is legally binding and every bit is important before God, right?

So if she already had that with this other guy, Ahmed Hersey, and they have children together,

why is she marrying this other dude before they're properly divorced, right? Why is that happening?

And what you end up seeing is you start seeing these pictures. There's Ilhan Omar. There's the

brother, right? And you start to see these various comments, right, about what's going on when

they're married because I checked out the Somali spot story online through the Minnesota official

marriage system. In putting Omar's name, I found that the two marriages cited in the Somali

spot post checked out is indicated. The site reflected Omar's 2002 marriage to her advertised husband,

Ahmed Aidan later Ahmed Hersey. And her 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nurse said, Elmi, identified

in the Somali spot post as Omar's brother. As it turned out, Omar and Hersey had only applied

for a marriage license in 2002, but never followed through with a legal marriage, which is also

questioning, like, why would they do that? So you go through, he's got, again, they got the

receipts with respect to marriage license. Siding the Somali spot post and online marriage

information, I contacted Omar's campaign and got a response from a criminal defense attorney,

Jean Brandel. I had seen her in court representing one of the six Somali defendants who pleaded

guilty in the 2016 ISIS terrorism case. The attorney's message was a classic non-response response

that called me a bigot and said, I should direct further questions to her rather than the

campaign spokesman I had called. She seemed to think she should care, she could scare me off.

When I directed my further questions to her, as she instructed, she ignored me. And then he goes

through. Here is how it was reported in and Colken story. Omar's campaign flatly denied that Elmi

is her brother. It would only say that she and Ahmed Hersey, who was pictured in campaign literature

and is the father of the three children, are together and raising a family. The star tribune could

not find records and minister out as showing that the two ever married. Her campaign website reads,

Ilhan, her husband and three children live in the West Bank neighborhood of District 60B.

The most recent voter registration record shows Omar and Hersey living in the

same West Bank address. So again, all of this is establishing that before her brother or her

alleged brother, she's married to this other guy. Like a lot of families, she and Hersey,

the father of the three children, have had ups and downs, have weathered some storms. But what

matters is that they came out of it together. Campaign spokesman Ben Goldfarb said,

that campaign would not make either Omar or Hersey available for comment,

released in a statement from Omar instead, a number of baseless absurd rumors that don't bear

repeating have been made recently about my personal life and family. Let me be clear they are

categorically false. Okay, this is interesting. And I'm going to tell you why and I'm going to

juxtapose this with some comments that happened in a recent Senate hearing. So all of us saw the Senate

hearing with Christy Known, right? And we saw the stuff coming out about Christy and a potential

relationship with Cory Lewandowski. And one of the things that you saw was you saw Christy Known

not saying this is categorically false, not saying this didn't happen. She was basically saying

that this was a scandalous question and that they were just trying to decorate her character.

But again, there wasn't just an outright declaration of this as false. And part of the reason

for that is if you declare something to be false, especially before Senate testimony,

when now you potentially run into some other problems, right? You potentially run into issues

with with perjury, especially if it's like an accord of law, you run into problems. If you light

a Congress, if you deliberately light a Congress, that poses other problems. But right here,

you have her coming right out and saying, nope, this is categorically false. But the problem is,

is that because she hasn't specifically said what is categorically false, she could probably get

away with this. Like if if you make a claim and you say she married her brother and she did this

and she did this and she says, this is categorically false. And you come back later and we'll which part

right now, now we get into specifics, but right now by not specifically addressing she can just

say that. The statement goes on to decry Donald Trump's style, misogyny racism, anti-immigration

rhetoric, and Islamophobic division. Rest assured that petty rumors like these will not distract me from

the important work that lies ahead for our communities. Scott Johnson, a writer of Power Alliance

that the campaign's response leaves many unanswered questions. Neither Ilhan Omar Omar nor her

campaign has offered an explanation for what is going on here. He said the voters of Omar's

district deserve a straight answer to a simple question. Now they have failed to provide one,

either to me or to the star tribune. And again, this goes into this whole issue of why don't just

just come right out and say it's false. And then I understand the issue where people don't always want to,

they don't always want to come forward and you know, kind of litigate it to death, right? Because

otherwise what happens is anybody can make a false claim about you and then your job is to stop

whatever you're doing and provide sufficient documentation to prove it isn't true. But this is

the part that's confusing, right? You have all these overlapping marriages and discrepancies and

timelines. So Omar entered a faith-based Islamic marriage with Ahmed Hersey, right? In 2002,

with whom she had three children, they applied for a legal marriage license that year but never

completed it. In 2009, while still in this relationship, they separated briefly in 2008 but

reconciled by 2011. Omar legally married Elmean and Hinpin County Minnesota listing him as a

British citizen. On the 2009 marriage application, Omar crossed out Elmean and wrote Omar,

which critics interpret as an attempt to align names for immigration purposes. Omar and Hersey

had their third child in 2012. So think about this for a second, right? So she gets married to this

other guy. She gets married to this other guy, let me see, in 2009, right, for the marriage

application. So she sold two thousand two issues with Ahmed Hersey. 2009, she marries this other guy.

2012, she has her third child with Hersey. She's still married to Elmean at this point,

right? Omar and Hersey had their third child in 2012 while she was still legally married to Elmean.

Divorce was finalized in 2017. Omar filed joint tax returns with Hersey in 2014 and 2015,

despite being legally wed to Elmean, leading to a 2019 Minnesota campaign finance

program that find her for related violations. And her 2017 divorce filing from Elme, Omar claimed

under penalty of perjury, no contact with him since 2011, but this contradicts other records.

Right? And then the social media evidence is deleted social media post from Omar Elmean family

members reportedly referred to each other in familial terms. For instance, a now removed

Instagram post by Elmean called Omar's 2012 newborn daughter, his niece,

and other post showed interaction suggesting this sibling relationship rather than a spousal one.

So when you add all this stuff up, that seems pretty damning, right? Like if you take it all

together, so you have you have naming conventions within Somalia that seem to add up, right? Then

you have this really, really strange timeline where she's married in an Islamic marriage to one guy

files for a legal marriage certificate, never gets married. Okay, you know, maybe they just

toes nod to it, maybe they decided they didn't need the state to do ratify their marriage, whatever it

was. But then all of a sudden, while she's still in this relationship with the other guy and the

father of two of her children, she gets married to this guy and based off of the naming conventions

and based off of some of the stuff on this social media website, among Somalis, it looks like

there's a familial tie there. And this guy who's now her husband is referring to

her child as his niece. Okay, and then he comes over and then when the marriage takes place,

she's still living, she's still cohabitating with the other guy. She's not cohabitating with now

her legal husband. And then she gets a religious divorce from the guy that she's legally married to

as she shacks up with the guy that she's religiously married to and has another kid with,

right? Have they have their third child? And now she's not with that guy either. So

I mean, here's what I'm saying. When you look at all of this stuff together, right? I'm not going

off it just vibes here. I'm not saying anyone came to me to dream and told me this. I'm saying,

this is all kind of documented, right? This is documented. And this seems to be a problem. Now,

you would think at this stage, you would think at this stage, Ilhan Omar could essentially shut all

this down. She, she could find the proper documentation heck if they wanted to get a DNA test,

they could do that. But why would she? Why would she, when essentially nobody is trying to hold

her to account except for one person? But we're going to get to that in a second. Now, the question,

the next question I wanted to ask here is what does it actually take for denaturalization because

it's important to remember something. Ilhan Omar is a legal citizen. She's a naturalized citizen.

Her family fled the Civil War, I think in 1991 is when they came over. From Somalia,

they lived in a refugee camp for like four years in Kenya, comes over to the United States,

her and her father and mother had been tragically killed. She lived in Northern Virginia for a while.

They make it out to Minnesota and she becomes a naturalized citizen at 17. So she's already

naturalized, right? She didn't, as far as we know, she engaged in, I don't know of any allegations

of voter for or excuse me, immigration fraud on her behalf to become a naturalized citizen at 17.

But so this asks the question, if she's a naturalized citizen and if she did that legally,

if we can't go back and say, no, Ilhan Omar, you lied about X, Y and Z to become a naturalized

citizen. As far as we know, that didn't happen. What is the process for denaturalization?

And this is the part where I'm going to bring up this description right here because I thought it

did the best job of providing an overall summary. In the United States, denaturalization,

which is revocation of naturalized citizenship, applies only to naturalized citizens and occurs

through judicial judicial proceedings and federal court. The primary grounds are outlined in the

Immigration and Nationality Act, INA Section 348. And if you actually wanted to see that,

I'll show it to you right real quick. Yeah, if you want to go through all this, be my guest,

but you can find it over there at uscode.house.gov. Okay, so it's right there. I'm going to go back

to this summary here. The primary grounds are outlined in Immigration and Nationality Act,

INA 348, codified in Section A, U.S. Code 145A, which allows revocation if naturalization was

a legally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or willfulness representation.

So as you see, like the first portion of this really kind of goes into this idea that we can

revoke your your citizenship if we can prove that you lied about who you were in some fashion

in order to get your citizenship, which doesn't seem to be the case for Ilhan Omar.

This includes hiding disqualifying information like prior criminal convictions, deportation

orders, involvement in war crimes or affiliations that would have barred eligibility such as

terrorist or subversive groups. A related criminal provision, this is in Section 18, U.S. Code 1425,

criminalizes knowingly procuring or attempting to procure naturalization contrary to law and a

conviction under this section leads to automatic revocation by the court. Additional grounds include

membership in certain prohibited organizations within five years after naturalization,

creating presumption of concealment, dishonorable discharge within five years after naturalizing

through wartime military service, and then rarely refusal to testify before Congress about subversive

activities within 10 years post naturalization. So to give you an idea, if you if Congress was calling

you to actually testify about a subversive or a terrorist organization and you refuse to do it,

then theoretically they could kick you out for that. Now this says the process is rare and require

strong evidence of clear and unequivocal and convincing in civil cases beyond a reasonable

doubt for criminal linked ones. Okay. The Department of Justice pursues these v civil division,

civil division, often targeting serious fraud like hidden war crimes, sex offenses, or identity fraud.

Now to give you an idea, if you wanted to search for this yourself, you can. All you have to do is go

to the U.S. Department of Justice, you can actually go to all news and you can do keyword search for

denaturalization. So what I did here was I did this because I wanted to see how often does this

happen. And right here we have 15 results where we have justice department secures denaturalization

for healthcare fraudster, seeks denaturalization for convicted gun trafficker, denaturalization for

court-martialed sex offender, convicted rapist, child sex offender, secures denaturalization

of Maryland man who repeatedly raped minor victim, distributor of child sexual abuse. So you can

see this sort of stuff that they're going back and getting denaturalization for. And you can

see other works. Now the next question is is how often does this actually happen? How often does

denaturalization actually happen? Right. So right here I just I did a question because I want to

since since exact success totals by president aren't fully documented cases,

conspand administrations and not all are publicized, the closest reliable metric for comparison

is cases filed, which correlates strongly with eventual successes due to high wind rates. So this

is like kind of a just a basic chart. And under the George W. Bush years there was about 80 to 100

denaturalizations, Barack Obama over eight years there was 88 to 120. Donald Trump in his first

term four years had 168. Joe Biden only had 64 and four years. And then Donald Trump in his second

term, they've already had 15 file or 16 file so far, but they have plans for a significant uptick in

that overall. So now that we know kind of like what the what the score is on this, I do want to

talk about something which is interesting. And that is the fact that I don't think Ilhan Omar

lied about her own immigration, but I do think her father did. So family members known to have

achieved naturalization status Ilhan Omar, she became a naturalized citizen in 2017. This was

achieved through a derivative citizenship, a process where a minor minor child automatically gains

citizenship when a parent naturalizes, provided the child as a permanent resident and under 18. So

again, it happened for its 17 multiple sources, including her official biography. In fact,

checks confirms she arrived in the US at age 12 and met all requirements. Now this is her dad,

Nur Omar Mohammed. As the basis for Ilhan's derivative citizenship, he naturalized around 2000.

He was a former Somali army colonel and teacher who worked as a taxi driver and postal worker

after resettling Minneapolis. He passed away in 2020 from COVID-19 complications. Okay. Now this

is the part where I want to say we probably shouldn't have a better job under dad. And this goes

to the deals, his connections with potential war crimes. So allegations suggest Mohammed was

associated with people committing war crimes due to a senior role in the Somali National Army

during a period when the army carried out these atrocities. Here's a breakdown. Some sources,

particularly from Somali land media and critics of Omar assert that her dad was directly or

indirectly involved in the Isoc genocide. For instance, he is described as overseeing operations

in key Somali land areas, handling propaganda and indoctrination logistics and troop deployments

aligned with anti-Isoc policies. Archival footage reportedly shows a man resembling him among

military leaders discussing the destruction of northern towns, include orders to kill, quote,

even the wounded and poison water sources. Veterans from the SNA, speaking anonymously,

place him in the Hargasia in 1984 during the buildup to the genocide and argue his kernel

rake implies command responsibility or proximity to figures like major general Mohammed sad

hercy Morgan, who authored the infamous letter of death advocating civilian obliteration.

Legal precedents in US courts have held similar Somali officers accountable for genocide under

command responsibility. His loyal to bar and that's a Saeed bar Saeed bear. Evidence by promotions

and service until the regime's fall and clan affiliation are cited as indicators of privilege

within a system that perpetuated these crimes. These claims often appear in partisan or Somali land

focused outlets. Okay, so let's let's go ahead and suggest, let's go ahead and say here that maybe

maybe if you came into the Somali military in the 60s, you enlisted. And by the time you got out,

you were a full kernel and the Somali army, which by the way your entire service ranged the entire

time as under the command of when say Saeed bar was running the country, who was, you know,

the guy was a socialist and he was a he was a brutal dictator, which carried out at least one

possibly two and possibly more genocide. So the argument is like, dude, you were a kernel

in this guy's army at the same time, all this stuff was happening. And for some people,

well, Nick, you know, you've got you kernel doesn't mean that, you know, you knew everything.

Okay, fine. Well, in July 1976, the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated the

army consisted of 22,000 personnel. This is the Somali army. Here's what I'm going to tell you.

If you are a senior ranking officer, right, in the military with a with a military of 22 personnel

and you have major combat operations going on, I think it's on you to prove that you were not involved

in the genocidal activities of the military you were a member of. Right. I think that's on you.

I think, I think before we just grant you a asylum as a guy that fled a civil war in a country

where you helped create the conditions for why the civil war existed. Maybe you get to explain how,

yeah, I was a kernel, but I was, I wasn't involved in any of that. Now, here's the counter arguments,

right. Fact checking spikes like snopes have repeatedly investigated and found, quote, no concrete

evidence that Muhammad personally committed war crimes or was directly involved in atrocities.

Okay. That's again, no concrete evidence. What exactly? His activities between 1978 and 1991,

post-Ogedin War are largely undocumented with the family residing in Mogadishu far from the

northern genocide sites. Okay, this comment right there is just stupid to me. When I went to,

when I did combat operations in Iraq, my family lived in Washington state. That's about as far

a way as you can get from where I was conducting combat operations, but you would not come to the

conclusion that I had nothing to do with combat operations in Iraq because my family lived somewhere

else. Allegations offer a lie on guilt by association with the regime of unsubstantiated name variations

or conflation with unrelated figures like Yusuf, Abdi Ali, a convicted torture. No court cases,

official reports are credible. Eyewitness accounts specifically implicated war crimes. Scholars

and veterans and some reports acknowledge a senior role implies proximity, but emphasize no

direct ties and note that Ilhan Omar, a child of the time bears no responsibility. Yeah,

I'm not claiming Ilhan Omar bears any responsibility for what her father might have done in Somalia when

she was an infant. By the same token, I'm a little bit frustrated by this idea that we let this guy

in, right? Why did why did we need to be the guys to give this to off this guy asylum?

Like seriously, why was that our responsibility to offer somebody that had been a colonel in a

regime that we clearly didn't support that we didn't like, right? And then you have the soldiers

over there in 1993 as part of the civil war that erupts as a result of the state bar that regime

falling. And we're taking refugees here. Why? You're telling me there was no other country

that this guy could have gone to from Somalia to the United States where he could have sought

refugee status because that's what refugee status is supposed to be. You go to the first country

where you can reasonably expect to not be deliberately targeted or killed by that country,

right? But instead he ends up in the United States. And it looks as if part of his family ends up

in the UK, part ends up in the United States, and then you have this whole issue here. So the

whole reason why I bring up this story of her father is because as I look at this, if you

actually had a scrutinizing, if you actually had a scrutinizing Homeland Security, we're just

we didn't have it there, but we still had ice and immigration. They would have been looking at

this going, yeah, I don't know that this guy is a good guy. I don't know if this guy is a good

guy for refugee status. And he's certainly not a good guy for naturalization. We should probably

be looking, we should probably be looking a little bit closer onto what this guy did over his roughly

what 25 year career in the Somali military in the midst of like several atrocities and potential

genocides that were taking place in this region while he was an officer and then a senior ranking

officer that those might be good questions to ask before we grant this guy refugee status,

much less citizenship. Because apparently, apparently the radical socialist

islamist part conveyed to his daughter fairly well, right? Again, sorry, it is what it is, but

here's the part that we need to look at on, we already discussed, okay, maybe we maybe her

father should remember at access, but do we have enough to actually do denaturalization for Ilhan

Omar? And now I'm going to go into that part, right? We're going to go ahead and determine whether

or not that's actually something that we could potentially see. All right, many denaturalization

efforts stem from marriage fraud, sham marriages or document fraud schemes and large scale operations,

US citizens or permanent residents who facilitate or help by entering sham marriages providing false

documents or running fraud rings are often prosecuted criminally. But if they are naturalized

immigrants themselves, a resulting conviction can trigger denaturalization. So that's the key.

You remember when we talked about denaturalization and all the reasons they were listing why people

generally get denaturalized. And then I listed out all those particular crimes of people that are

currently being denaturalized, right? This is the part that potentially ties Ilhan Omar to a crime

that could lead to her denaturalization. And this is for instance, operators in marriage fraud

agencies have face sentencing for roles and large scale schemes helping foreign nationals obtain

benefits fraudulently. If the facilitator was a naturalized citizen, such convictions support

denaturalization. So I'm not claiming that she was necessarily a part of a whole, you know,

agency. But there is, there is at least sufficient suspicion to ask some questions about whether or

not she did actually engage in immigration fraud. And like I said, there's nobody tracking this

down except for the fact that Congresswoman Nancy Mace from South Carolina did. Representative

Nancy Mace moves to subpoena Ilhan Omar and alleged brother husband and Minnesota fraud probe

motion blocked by both parties goes into here in the press release January 8th, 2026.

Yesterday, Congresswoman Nancy Mace moved to subpoena immigration records related to representative

Ilhan Omar and her brother slash husband during a house oversight and accountability committee

hearing titled oversight of fraud and misuse of federal funds in Minnesota part one. The hearing

exam in the massive theft and misuse of taxpayer dollars connected to a Somali linked fraud network,

which flourished under Minnesota governor Tim Walsh's leadership. Represent Mace's motion

sought immigration records necessary to determine whether federal laws were violated in connection

with the immigration of Omar and her brother slash husband. The motion was tabled by both

Democrats and Republicans on the committee. The quote by Nancy Mace says,

Rob Democrats and Republicans teamed up to kill our motion to subpoena the records. Washington

did what it always does protects its own. The American people are sick of backroom deals and

selective accountability. Public reporting has raised serious allegations. Representative Omar

entered into a legal marriage in 2009 with a man. She had privately identified as her brother

allegedly for the purpose of securing lawful immigration status. Reports further states she

previously entered a religious marriage in 2002, which was not legally dissolved until years later.

If these allegations are true, they raise grave concerns involving potential marriage fraud,

immigration fraud, and violations of federal and state law may continue. No one, no matter how

politically protected should be above the law. During the hearing, Representative Mace pressed witnesses

on whether Somali immigrants convicted of large-scale fraud should be naturalized and deported.

When Minnesota officials became aware of that, okay, that's one of the fraud. We're going to

go ahead and skip that for right now. Here's what I think is interesting about this.

It's the fact that why? I know why. I know why. I wish I didn't know why. I was about to ask,

why would they vote to table the motion? But having served 10 years in a legislative body,

I know why. It's because for a lot of senior leadership, they see this as being kind of

either a distraction, or they see it as something that for lack of, I can't believe I'm about to use

this term, so just forgive me. It gives them the Ick guys. They don't like it. They feel like it's

beneath the dignity of the institution, right? They feel like if anything, what this is going to do

is going to encourage people to come in and launch similar claims, and we don't want to get,

we don't want to get into the gutters with all these various accusations, because after all,

this seems pretty bad, right? A member of Congress committing immigration fraud by marrying her

brother in order to help get him legal status quicker. That just, right? And then there's also

probably the question, can we actually find sufficient documentation one way or another in order to

in order to actually determine what happened, right? Beyond a reasonable doubt.

And, but why wouldn't you try at this point? Like what sort of what sort of loyalty exactly do we

have, you know, to Ilhan Omar? Let me ask you a question. If Ilhan Omar was in a position to cause

one of her political opponents, the greatest amount of pain possible, would she do it? The answer is

yes. Now, the response that we'll get back from somewhere, well Nick, but do two rights make

a wrong? No, two rights don't make a wrong, but enforcing the law is actually the right thing to do.

It's actually the right thing to do. I want to, I want to show you this because it's about time,

it is about time that these guys just, here's the Republicans, all right? The Republicans

on the House Oversight Committee who reportedly voted to table i.e. Block, Republican Nancy

Macy's motion to subpoena Ilhan Omar's immigration records during the January 7th,

2022, 26th Committee hearing, thus aligning with Democrats to prevent the investigation are as

follows based on multiple reports and statements, including from Macy's result. Note that a small

group of five Republicans voted against tabling to support advancing the subpoena, right? So the

the people that voted for it, right? The remaining Republican committee members at the time are

understood to have voted yes on the tabling. James Comer from Kentucky, Jim Jordan from Iowa,

Michael Turner from Ohio, Paul Gosner from Arizona, Virginia Fox from North Carolina,

Glenn Gotham from West Conston, Gary Palmer from Alabama, Clay Higgins from Louisiana,

Pete Sessions from Texas, Andy Biggs from Arizona, that one seems strange to me because Andy

Biggs is a stand-up guy, like Andy Biggs is great. So I don't know why he voted yes on this.

Pat Fallon in Texas, Byron Donald's of Florida, again, that one's strange because he's a typical

good guy, William Tim and South Carolina, Anna Polina Luna, again, typically good, don't know why

she'd vote this way. Nicholas Longworth or Langworthy from New York, Eric Burleson from Missouri,

Eli Crane from Arizona, again, he's usually outstanding. So I don't know why he'd vote that way.

Brian Jack from Georgia, John McGuire, I know, whatever. And then Brandy Gil from Texas,

he's usually outstanding as well. So here's what I'm going to say because this is important

to understand. There are certain people when they vote a particular way, I'm like, yeah, that makes

sense. I'm not at all surprised. I'm not at all surprised. That guy voted that way. There are

some people on here where it gives me a little bit more pause, right? Andy Biggs, Eli Crane,

Brandon Gill, those guys are solid dudes, right? Now, there's a small group of five of

Republicans that voted against tabling to support advancing the subpoena was Nancy,

Mace, Lauren Bober, Tim Birchett, Michael Cloud and Scott Perry. I know Scott, I know Scott

fairly well. Scott is like outstanding. Scott is outstanding. Tim Birchett is outstanding.

So this is the part that confuses me. Why do we have Andy Biggs, Eli Crane and Brandon Gill

and Byron Donalds on this? Because all four of those guys are generally stand up guys,

you know, Anna Polina Luna's stand up as well. And I don't know what the answer to that. I'd be

happy to give them an opportunity to explain if they were so interested. But here's what I am

going to say. If you're still playing this game like, well, we're above all this. We're above all

this. We don't want to get into the gutter. Then you don't understand what time it is. You just

don't. Ilhan Omar despises this country. Now, despising this country is not a crime.

despising this country is not reason for denaturalization, right? Her dad probably should have never

been granted refugee status or naturalization is also not a reason to deprive her of denaturalization.

But if she willingly participated in immigration fraud, right? And then repeatedly lied about

participating in immigration fraud. And there is sufficient evidence to suggest that might be

what has happened. And if we can be reasonably certain that nobody in Minnesota is going to try to

prosecute this, I'm curious as to why this investigation can go forward. Now, maybe there's a good

reason. Maybe somebody in the chat has a good reason. And I'll be happy to listen to it. In fact,

let's get to some super chats right here. Flood time, flood time, sorry, flood timber farm says,

hey, Nick, when you speak at the once 1613 conference, will you be addressing the issue of pastures

not wanting to talk politics and the rising threats to Christianity like Islam, like Islam here in the US?

Yes, I will be. I actually just talked about this at the Museum of the Bible with an organization called

the Black Road Regiment in Josh McPherson. I talked a lot about this whole role of what

role do pastures have to play within our country, within politics. And I'll probably be talking about

there as well. The real Justin said, denaturalized for her support of terrorists alone, another

example of why paperwork Americans should not hold office. So this is a this is a bigger question,

right? The one thing is support for terrorists alone because what she would say is, oh, I didn't

support terrorists, right? Now, I think she's I think she's low key supportive of Hamas. I think

the same thing about Rashida to leave. And theoretically, if someone is supportive of a terrorist

organization, if you look at if you look at denaturalization law, if you look at actually the code,

it talks about affiliation, right? So you have to actually be a member or you have to be doing

something to actually give like positive like materials support to them. So if you look at this

national guard, this ex-national guardsman that went in and shot up the ROTC class, that guy was

convicted of trying to actually send materials to ISIS. That guy probably would have been a I

think he was a natural, yeah, pretty sure it was a naturalist citizen. He would have been a

perfect candidate for denaturalization. It's it's a little it gets a little bit more murky when

somebody makes kind of big claims to, you know, saying, you know, they don't like Israel or they

don't like what the United States is doing in Gaza or they don't like the support for it. That's

a little bit more difficult, right? That's a little bit more difficult because now you get into

freedom of speech issues. This is one to say part of the reason why I think it would be worth it

to take the initial measures and actually do the investigation is because of her apparent support

for organizations and regimes that hate the United States, right? So it's one of those things where

breaking the law should be reason enough. But if we can all acknowledge, if we can all acknowledge

that it gets a little dicey when you are going to try to bring up charges that you're not sure

that you can actually win a case in court, right? Should you do that with a sitting member of Congress?

If you don't think you can win in court, should you do it? And that is another proper question is

why is Congress investigating this? Why isn't the federal government investigating? I don't mean the

legislature. I mean the FBI. Why aren't they investigating this, right? Or have they investigated

it and come back and determined that they don't have enough to prosecute? I don't know the answer

to those questions, but I do know that when you have someone that is engaging the sort of behavior

that she has and you have what what looks like, at least enough evidence to want investigation,

there should be an investigation. She-Masker said, I feel like a jerk saying this, but maybe only

naturally-born citizens should serve. Islam is inherently antithetical to Western culture and our

education system doesn't address that. This is the other part where they've been getting mad at

certain Republicans lately. There was- was Andy- Andy Ogles from Tennessee. He made a comment like this.

There was another congressman I think from Florida that said something as well. Here's two things

can be true at once. So for instance, I know- I know people- I know who people who say their Muslim,

who have served the country honorably, who love the country, who don't want to change the

constitution, who don't want to do any of that. Now, a lot of people come and say, well fine,

then they're not real Muslims. Be that as it may, right? What I'm saying is that I can look at

individual Muslims that I know who are patriotic Americans, who I don't think should automatically

be the naturalizer, sent home or anything else by virtue of being a Muslim. But to say that Islam

is incompatible with Western society or Western civilization, I think it's just factual,

right? You're not going to find Islamic countries which set up Western style governments.

You're not going to find Islamic countries that generally adhere to what we would consider to be

Western values. So if they don't create the sort of environment that we would associate with

Western civilization, why would we assume that mass importing people that have diametrically

opposed social economic, political, and theological values would somehow create a stronger Western

civilization? I don't think that's an inappropriate question to ask, because it's not ethnic,

it's not racial, it's theological. If you're theology and your ideology essentially says that we

need to replace the United States Constitution with the Quran, the Hadith, and Sharia, well then that's

antithetical, that's diametrically opposed. And me pointing that out doesn't make me a bad guy.

In fact, I've talked about this before where I watched the left do this where the left, which

supports certain values that will you get you thrown off of buildings in Islamic countries.

We'll sit there and act like they don't really mean it. It's like, well, I'm pretty sure they mean

it. I'm pretty sure they mean it. I'm pretty sure if they could get what they want over the United

States, they would get it. The fact that they don't have sufficient power to get what they want

means that they will settle for what they can get. And that's pointed it out that, okay, that

doesn't seem very conducive to Western civilization or a constitutional model. That's on this being bad

guys. That's on us being xenophobic. That is us actually treating them with the respect that you

would teach any other adult that when they say something, they mean it. So, yeah.

Again, if you have a question for me, do me a big favor. It helps me see it in the chat. Just

write question and big bold letters. And then, and then write your question that makes it easier

for me to see it. Another question right here is super chat. Thank you very much from John Thomas.

Leaving aside the brother claim, there's clear probable cause she entered into a sham marriage for

the purpose of immigration fraud. That is a really good point, John, because the brother stuff is

additionally scandalous, right? Because now it's not only illegal from the standpoint that you were

engaged in a sham marriage, but now that's a sham marriage even from a legal standpoint.

Like, forget immigration. You don't get to marry your brother in the United States. We don't do that.

We're not like some other places in the world. So, the thing is, it's like, okay, leave the brother

out. Maybe it's not a brother. Maybe it's a cousin. Maybe they're not related at all. Does anybody

think that was a real marriage? Does anybody think that Ilhan Omar, who's religiously married and has

two kids with Ahmed, Ahmed Hersey, who then gets married to this guy where there seems to be,

there seems to be familiar ties. There seems to be something there. And then she marries the guy

and apparently doesn't fall joint taxes with him. Doesn't at least as far as we know from what I've

seen, doesn't seem to cohabitate with him. In fact, she seems to be filing joint taxes with the

other dude at the same point. And oh, by the way, while she's still married to this guy, she has

her third child with the other guy that she was originally married to anybody. I'm sorry, anybody

in immigration should be able to look at that, ask some basic questions ago. Yeah, I don't think

you're in a real marriage here. I think you're helping someone facilitate their green card and

their citizenship. That's what you're doing. That alone, take the brother thing out of it,

take any relationship out of it. That alone is participating in an immigration front. And

that alone, as we've already demonstrated, can get you denaturalized. Now, it doesn't have to get

you denaturalized. You can simply be punished in other ways, punished or fine. But it could,

it could. So I know that is John excellent point, excellent point is even throw the other stuff out.

Question from Ramona from Facebook question, what about the documents that have been surfacing

here recently, that she was actually over the age of 18, sorry, over the age of 18 when she came

here and that she lied about her birthday and changed it on some documents. I haven't seen

those ones as yet. So I haven't commented on them. I would have to see them in order to be able

to address it. But yeah, like you saw before, the reason why she got naturalization was because

her father who was already here, you're the children of people that have already been here and

been granted naturalization can be automatically naturalized if they're under the age of 18.

Now again, the same thing that she's using in order to claim that, you know, they couldn't get

their birth certificate. They couldn't get the other information that was necessary in order to

prove that this other guy that she was marrying in this potentially fraud relationship wasn't her

brother. Well, we couldn't get it. We were fleeing a civil war in Somalia. That seems to make sense,

right? It seems to make sense that you would not be able to prove that. But then that also

suggest that, okay, was she really 17? Was she really 17 or did she just look young up to claim it

and nobody was checking real hard, right? That's another good question. That one could potentially

be harder to prove because like you could run a simple DNA test and find out if this guy was

her brother. Like you can close it. You could spit in a cup and figure that out in a relatively

short period of time. When it comes to establishing how old she is, that would be a little bit more

difficult, but it is interesting. Yes, Stacy Burns says that this is a normal person. They would

already have been gone. Why is this taking so long? So, Stacy, first of all, a couple of things.

Let's just be honest about this. If it wasn't normal person, it's not necessarily that they would

automatically be gone, right? Not necessarily. But you're right that members of Congress or elected

officials, it seems like they kind of get away with some stuff. Now, I'm going to provide an

explanation for that and I am not saying that this explanation is sufficient. I'm not saying it's

good on a legal level. I'm just going to call it like it is, right? When you look at someone who's

an elected official, the way that gets interpreted, especially by other elected officials is, okay,

this person is occupying a position of public trust. They have been trusted. If you're a member of

Congress, you've been elected by hundreds of thousands of people and you represent that person.

This is why, like, when I was a delegate, if I wasn't legislative session, and I got arrested

for something, I'd still be arrested. I could still be incarcerated. I could still be tried

convicted and served time and kicked out of the, but they couldn't stop me from showing up to the

General Assembly session while the session was going. And the reason why we do this is obviously,

you don't want the people in power to be able to use the power of government to prevent elected

representatives from going and doing their duties without following due process. And so because

there's this additional scrutiny to make sure that the incentive for going after this person

is not just political, right? So again, I'm not claiming that elected officials should be above

the law. All I'm trying to explain is that there is one other side to that story where it essentially

says, we don't want to live in a world where people just do false accusations against somebody

and now they're arrested and they're not able to carry out their legislative or representative

duties on behalf of their people. And the claim is basically all politically motivated. It's not

actually rooted in facts and evidence. So that's why there's sometimes additional scrutiny, right?

That's that's the positive way. The other reason why there's additional scrutiny is because

they're all connected to power. They're all connected to power. And they got people

little pull strings and help them out, right? So I wanted to be as intellectually honest as I

possibly could. But yeah, yeah, Jerry Woods says from YouTube, no, she didn't marry her brother

more mega BS. Well, thank you, Jerry. That's that's that's such a good analysis, man.

You really hammered it home. I want to thank you for that that huge stack of documentation or

evidence or whatever else, right? Now, I know it's difficult to prove a negative, right? I understand

that, right? But the idea that we've been talking here for about the last 50 minutes on here's

all the stuff lining up and here's why this looks like there might be something there. And your

responses, this is just mega BS. Well, okay, great. You're just liberal BS. So I'll just go ahead

and discredit you with the with the same ease that you discredit us. Vicki from Facebook said,

why isn't anyone in Minnesota or Congress checked her immigration status? Apparently they haven't

even checked. Well, I think they have checked the immigration status if I'm if I'm correct because

she's naturalized. What they haven't checked in is to what what there doesn't appear to be

sufficient investigation of is the allegations regarding her engaging immigration fraud.

Now, the other thing I will say is why hasn't anyone in Minnesota? I don't think anybody in the

government of Minnesota is actually interested in running this to ground. This is one of the reasons

why I tell people that some of the most important elections that you will participate in are your

sheriff and your Commonwealth attorneys or your district attorneys. So Virginia, we have Commonwealth

attorneys and other states they have district attorneys. And insofar as you can vote for those

positions, right? Because sometimes it varies by state. Sheriffs are usually voted for. It is very

important that you do, right? Because you're you're sheriff, your Commonwealth attorney, your district

attorney gets to prioritize what cases that they want to take. And so if they're tied in really

close with Ilhan Omar or the, you know, the community or one of its supporters, they don't have a big

incentive to actually try this. Now, what should be happened is because what we're talking about is

violation of federal law. There's probably some stuff in there that you can claim is violation of

state law as well. But I don't I don't trust anybody in Minnesota. Is that interested in prosecuting

this? But on the federal side, you would think there would be some interest there. And so the question

is, is there an investigation going, right? And I don't know the answer to that question.

Conservative cookout on YouTube said, question, how do we keep freedom from religion with Islam that

will not allow other religions? If you let it grow, it will take over. How do we rectify this? This

is one of those problems. So, so to give you an idea, Karl Popper. Well, I'm not a huge fan of,

right? But I think there's, I think there's some good things that he did, some bad things that he

did. But he wrote the book Open Society. And one of the things he talks about is this concept of the

paradox of tolerance. And the paradox of tolerance is if you want to be a generally tolerant society,

there are still things that you cannot tolerate in a generally tolerant society. And one of the things

that you can't tolerate is essentially ideologies, movements, or things of that nature that would come

in and essentially make it impossible to live together. And so for instance, if you're coming in

you're openly advocating for bigotry, or you're openly advocating for racism. That's a kind of

that is a kind of intolerance that a tolerant society can't tolerate if that makes sense, right?

Like, let me put it a more extreme example. If we say we live in a generally tolerant society,

what that means is is that generally speaking, you're free to believe what you want,

you're free to worship, you're free to say what you want without consequence from the government.

That doesn't mean your neighbors have to like you or your boss can't fire you. It just means

the government isn't going to come in and squash or suppress your speech because they don't like it,

right? That's considered a generally tolerant society. The paradox of tolerance says, okay,

but in that society we can't tolerate murder. We can't tolerate theft. We can't tolerate. If

someone's going around advocating, arguably if someone was going around advocating for the state

to squash speech, that would be a behavior that a tolerant society shouldn't tolerate.

The problem is the left have said, no, the paradox of tolerance is we can't tolerance anyone on,

we can't tolerate anyone on the right because they want things that we don't want. Now,

this comes into the same problem with respect to Islam. If you're going to say we're a country

which respects religious freedom, how many people from a religion that doesn't respect religious

freedom, can you let into your country? And I would say the argument is not very many because if they

reach a critical mass, what we'll start doing is gaining representation at local state and federal

seats, and then they'll start imposing a different worldview because our constitutional is amenable.

Not to mention the fact that if you get the right judges in place, they just interpret it in

ways that you never intended. So there does have to be something where Western civilization has to say

and we used to. For the first 150 years of our country's history, we were a lot more selective on

who could easily immigrate to the United States. We would essentially allow immigration for just

about anywhere with some exceptions. But we generally give preferential treatment to people coming

from countries and cultures, which were more similar to ourselves. Why? Because it was a better

bet that they would be able to properly assimilate. When you're allowing people to now mass

immigrate from countries, which again, diametrically or what do we see diametrically opposed? Let's just

say very different social economic, political, and theological systems. That's a recipe. That's

not a recipe for good assimilation. When you allow the mass importation of people with diametrically

opposed views, socially, economically, politically, and theological, that's a recipe for disaster.

And so this is not to say that you have to kick out everyone that identifies as a Muslim,

but the idea that you want to take that into consideration with respect to your immigration policy

is just absurd. It's part of this what God's side refers to as suicidal empathy.

All right, got another super chat here from view seven question. If there's a need for more or maybe

a more obvious way to phrase it, I'm not sure how to word it. Okay, is there any need for more

evidence for public officials? What would that look like? And how would it be abused? And how can we

stop it? Thanks. Let me see. I'm going to try to, is there any need for more evidence for public

officials? Okay, so you correct me if I'm wrong in this and you've got to do another super chat.

If you just want to put it in the live and put question in front, I'll try to find it.

If you're saying should there be like a higher threshold or more transparency with respect to

running for office, they're kind of it, right? We have to file a lot more things publicly.

We have to do regular reports. We have to do ethics reports and some of that state level,

some of that's federal level. So there is more stuff that we have to do. I don't know if that's

what you mean. If you mean more evidence with respect to criminal convictions, no, there shouldn't

have to be more evidence for criminal convictions. What it is is that we just have to make sure that we're

not, you don't want to subject elected officials to frivolous lawsuits. Not simply because it's

bad because there are citizens and nobody should be subjected to frivolous lawsuits, but because

there's an additional implication there. That additional implication is that if your elected

official can be sued or investigated for not based off of probable cause, but through political

motivations, well, then what you're doing is you're intimidating them and not properly representing

their constituents or their district. So I don't think we need additional evidence to convict

somebody at elected official of the crime. We just need to make sure that we have plenty of

scrutiny, right? One of the reasons why some people are skeptical of this whole claim about Ilhan Omar

is it's like, well, if this is true, why hasn't there been an investigation? I don't know the answer

to that question. I feel like there should have been. Maybe there already was one and it was put

to bet. You know, maybe this has gone on so long that nobody wants to bring it up to this point

because they feel like it's just, it's kind of gone past the point where anybody would care about

it. Like I don't know the answer to those questions. Those are just some of the reasons that people

could use the justification. So I hope I, I hope I properly answered that. I apologize if I didn't.

Um, spring or Joseph from Facebook said question, do senators congressman go through a background

check and possess the security clearance? If they have an SC and completed the SF 86,

then how can she possess the security clearance or even serve in Congress if she's pro-Islam

gentrification, etc. If she's supporting terrorist acts backed by Iran, then how can she serve in

Congress? Isn't that questions like SF 86? So when you go for your security clearance,

they do ask you questions about, um, you know, have you, have you ever willingly participated

or advocated for the overthrow of the US government or things like that? But here's the deal.

The question becomes is what do you mean by advocate? So has Ilhan Omar come out and

said anything? Or do we have evidence of Ilhan Omar come out and say anything that she, for

instance, is getting aid in comfort to Iran or gave an aid in comfort to the enemy. And

aid in comfort is not simply saying, I don't think this war should be going on. Right? There,

there's a lot of people that love America that are looking at this going, I don't think we should

be in war in Iran. And they're not traders, they're not doing anything wrong. With respect to,

does every member of Congress have a security clearance? I don't believe so. I think,

let me check real quick. I'm almost positive the answer is no. Sorry.

I think it only, I think it generally only applies if their committee actually requires it or if

there's certain briefings. I do think there's, I don't, you know, I have to go through a formal

background check, the kind that you would think for a security clearance to serve an elected office.

I know you don't need to do it at the state level. There's nothing there. You just have to

meet the minimum requirements to run. So no, not every member of Congress has a security clearance

in the conventional sense. Members of the US Congress, senators and representatives do not

undergo the standard security clearance process that applies to executive branch employees,

contractors or most federal personnel. Security clearances are an executive branch mechanism

involving background investigations. Instead, members of Congress have inherent constitutional

authority to access classified information as part of their legislative oversight role.

This stems from their elected positions in a separate branch of government. They are generally

deemed trustworthy for such access by virtue of their office and do not require or receive formal

security clearances. Now, the important thing to understand here is that doesn't mean they get

access to everything, right? Members are entitled to access classified information without needing

a clearance. They typically take oaths of secrecy, whatever. No background check or formal clearance

of education process is required for them. This differs from congressional staff who often do need

formal security clearances. Now, I will say this. I am relatively positive. That does not mean

that a member of Congress, I mean, if you know anything about security clearances and it sounds

like you do, you know that you have secret, top secret, and then you have what they call SCI, which

is secured, compartmentalized information. So, for instance, for a while, I had a top secret

security clearance. That doesn't mean I can access any computer in the government. I'm like,

oh, it's from the top security secret file. You have to have access. You have to have a reason.

You have to have need to know in some of these cases in order to see stuff. You have to be what

they call red on, right? I'm not giving away anything. You can go all this and check it.

It appears that for members of Congress, they can have access to certain elements of classified

information without having to go through those checks. And that is concerning. That is concerning.

That is something that theoretically I would think should be checked. Because I can understand

you needing to have access to information in order to, you know, maybe vote on certain things.

But if you're going to serve on certain committees, well, then yeah, if you're serving

certain committees which routinely have access to classified information, you should have to go

through that same process. I think it's absurd that you wouldn't have to.

You said, thank you again for the super chat. You said, he says, question, it's meant to say more

obvious blightened evidence for a conviction. And I agree with you if it walks and talks like a duck,

but has a long neck. It's a goose is my family. Thanks for answering. Yeah, that's, that's what I

would say. I don't think I don't think you should have to have a higher threshold of evidence

in order to convict an elected official of a crime. I think that as you're going through the

investigative process, what you should do is recognize that there's an additional incentive

to carry false allegations and elected official that might not exist for a private citizen, right?

So nobody's sitting at home thinking of ways to destroy Bob, right? But if Bob gets elected to

Congress, well, then now theoretically, you have a lot of people that are thinking of creative

ways to try to destroy Bob and legal mechanisms might be one of them. So from an investigative standpoint,

that's where it falls on you to make sure that you're just applying the same scrutiny. You would

anybody else in order to determine whether or not investigation is warranted. But I don't think,

I don't think Congress people of Congress should have like special requirements.

Nick said, Nick from YouTube said, if Islam's entire faith is to make everyone Islamic and they

are openly preaching it, watch their YouTube, they are either through peace or war. Why should we

allow them to stay? Okay, so let's, let's do a couple things. He made an important distinction here

and that's through peace or war. I want everyone to become a Christian, right? That's a mandate of

Christianity. One of the, one of the orders within Christianity with the commands of the

Christianity is to proselyse to share the gospel, etc., etc. But it's also understood within

Christianity that we cannot use the sword to proselytize, right? I cannot force you to convert.

Muslim doesn't have, or Islam doesn't seem to have any such compunction. And so the question is,

is that if somebody advocates for that, why can't they be kicked out of the country? And part of the

reason goes into is that the question is, if you believe that versus if you try to do it,

if you try to do it, well, now we can potentially convict you. And if you're a naturalized citizen,

we can potentially denaturalize you. And I think that might be a, not mine. I think that would be

an appropriate thing to do. But if you're just saying, well, I believe this is generally true,

but I'm not going to personally execute it. Now, where's the crime? Is the crime in thinking it?

Is the crime in believing it? And in order to denaturalize, we have specific codes. You have to

fall within those codes and be afford to do process before you can be kicked out. So that answers,

I don't know if that's what you wanted to hear, but that's essentially the reason why, right? There's

one, there's a difference between believing in something or even thinking something is just and

then actively going out and committing a crime that would fall within the lawn gets you removed.

But the thing that we should be doing on the front end is saying, look, if you are basically coming

from a place and if you adhere to certain ideologies, which are again, diametrically opposed with

our country, it's founding our laws, our society, you shouldn't be naturalized. You want to come

and visit maybe, but like, you know, you shouldn't get to come to the United States citizen.

If it is your lifelong ambition to essentially overthrow the very system of government we have

in order to replace it with one informed by Islam or Sharia. I don't think that's unreasonable

on our part because here's what I do know. I do know that I'm probably not going to be able to

naturalize, like if I went to Saudi Arabia right now, or if I went to Qatar, or if I want to,

I don't get to go out and just street preach wherever I want. I don't get to do those things.

I don't get to advocate the overthrow of the system in Saudi Arabia or Qatar and be a citizen

or even just visit while doing those things. I don't get to do that over there. Why should they

get to do it here? Right? And again, this isn't a, well, doesn't that make us just as, but no,

it's about wanting your society to flourish and understanding that if your society and your

civilization is defined by certain things within the people that don't want those things or

consider themselves the enemy of those things, probably shouldn't be invited in to not only be a part

of those things, but then to actually serve an elected office in order to get rid of those things.

Okay, let me see if I got any more questions here in the queue.

Alrighty, it's going in right here. Okay, got another one here. Thank you again for the

super chat there. I always, I gotta tell you, some of the handles on there is that she's

masquer, she's masquer, is that good? Getting involved in politics fills out of reach for

everyday folks. How do we bridge that gap? Oh, gosh, I would love. Please, please hear me because I'm

going to tell you right now I'm in three minutes, I'm going to tell you how you can be the most

effective in politics. First of all, if you want to get involved, you can get involved in like your

local committee level because one of the most important ways to ensure that you actually have

better representation is through the primary process. And I'm telling you, this is somebody that

challenged a 14 year incumbent Republican and he decided to retire. My wife challenged a 27 year

incumbent Republican. We both ran as Republicans, by the way. The point is is that you can have an

oversized influence by actually being more involved in the committee level and actually being more

involved in the primaries because that is, it's the least amount of money, it's the least amount

of votes of all the elections. General elections, it's usually a lot more money, a lot more votes,

and it's a foregone conclusion at that point. You're not running as an independent and beating your

crappy Republican representative. But if you can get a good candidate to run into primary,

sometimes you can win, sometimes you can beat him. But even if you don't beat him, you create the

conditions where now they know they're being watched and they typically start to vote better.

So I'll say it over and over and over again until I'm blue in the face, get involved with committees

or getting involved with state level organizations, which you think are meaningful and doing good work

and then be involved in the primary process. A couple of organizations that have done really,

really good work on the primary side are citizens of Alliance of America and full disclosure,

I do work with them. And then another one has been young Americans for Liberty. They've done

some good work. In fact, they've won like over 250, 270 state legislative seats. A lot of it by

either finding empty seats to run people for, preparing it, challenging incumbents, doing all that

good stuff. So it really is the primaries. The primaries is a way that you can have an oversized

influence in politics. Okay, Michael bomber from YouTube said, question, why do we keep conflating

settlers with immigrants of today, especially these legal ones? Settlers come here for the opportunity

to build a new life. Legos come here for government handouts. Okay, very, very good. We have two

things here, right? You got settlers, you got immigrants, and then you got a legal immigrants. So

a settler is generally someone that's coming to land that hasn't been significantly developed

and is drastically underpopulated. What are the definitions of that? That's where you can get into a

lot of fights with people. But the bottom line is when you look at the early settlers in the

United States, they were settlers. They were not immigrants. They were not immigrating to something.

They're not coming to be a part of something else. They were settling here in order to establish

something that then it exists. Now, I'm not denying the fact that there were Indian tribes in North

America. I'm not denying any of that, right? But I'm saying that is a distinction between a settler

and immigrant. Now, immigrant is someone who's coming to join something else, right? You presumably,

you're not coming here to change our country into what you left. You're coming here because your

country left something to be desired. And now you're coming to another country, which you think

is going to be a better place for you to live, exist, raise a family, whatever, right? So there

should be a proper level of respect and a desire to assimilate. Now, a legal immigrant may have

similar motivations, but they don't follow the process. So right off the bat, they've started

by disrespecting the very country that they're trying to come to. Now, we can all acknowledge that

there may be extreme circumstances where you just got to get the hell out of dodge and you came to

the United States. Maybe you were fleeing a cartel in northern Mexico. Look, I don't begrudge somebody

that crossed the border illegally because they really thought they were about to die if they didn't

do it. I still think there needs to be a legal process in order to determine whether or not you get

to stay or go somewhere else. But I get it, right? I'm not, I'm not heartless. I understand the

motivation. But the problem we have right now is we have a massive welfare state. It used to be that

people came to the United States both legally and illegally. But when you got to the United States,

you had to assimilate because you weren't going to live off the government teeth, right? Because

there wasn't one, right? You either had your family or you had civic organizations that were

willing to help you out, but there wasn't this massive elaborate welfare system that propped you

up. You came to the United States not to live off of us, but in order to contribute because we were

the place that would allow you to lo and behold, keep what you earn. But over time, we've increasingly

become this sort of place where Democrats are constantly trying to take what we have earned in order

to set up an elaborate welfare state so they can decide who gets what. And that creates a perversive

a perversive center for people to immigrate into the country legally or illegally. But yeah, there

is an important distinction between settler, immigrant and illegal immigrant. All right, I want to do

I'm going to do a couple more here just to make sure I got all the other ones and then we'll kind

of call it a day here. Nana Watson said, question, why can't we ban a competing judicial

system like Sharia law? So good question. There's two things here. One is, theoretically, when you have

a legal system, that automatically excludes all of the legal systems. Now, you can obviously have

processes for adjudication within private organizations or entities. So for instance, if you join

the Lions Club, right, they have rules and they have governing bodies and they have things by laws.

And if you violate those, you can get kicked out of the organization, but you can't be punished

civilly or criminally because you violated the laws with you can be removed from the organization.

Essentially, that's essentially that's the difference, right? You can have a governing body

within civil society, which can remove you from the governing body if you violate the rules,

but they can't like assess additional fines or punish you or imprison you unless they go through

the actual legal process. So the existence of our judicial system is supposed to exclude any other

competing judicial system. The problem is is that what we find, and we see this a lot in other

countries, and we're starting to see it more in the United States, is that now we're starting to

see penalties assessed, which cannot be assessed within private organizations. You have to go into

the judicial. So now you're actually starting to see on the state level, more people saying, we're

going to ban Sharia law. We're going to ban Sharia law because we don't want there any to be any

confusion. Let me give you one argument for why some people don't want to specifically ban Sharia law.

And the reason why is because there's this kind of theory in law that if you ban one thing without

banning all the other things like it, you actually open up the court to interpretations that you don't

want. So let me give you an example of this. If you have, let's say you have like a general

restriction on murder, right? But then you, so it's like you cannot murder, right? That's just

the law. You cannot murder. That's it. But then you come up with, oh, but you really can't murder

people under these conditions. Like you really can't murder someone when you're motivated by hate.

Now we have hate crime laws. Now we add confusion into the mix because if you're a judge and you're

looking at this and it's like, okay, this murder is just murder, but this murder was motivated by hate.

Was it not motivated by hate? Is the penalty supposed to be different? So when the moment you add

some sort of exception, so the moment you say, hey, Sharia law is illegal. We've got our US

judicial system. That's what we go with it. And Sharia law is illegal. Well, then it's like, okay,

well, you mentioned Sharia law, but you didn't mention, you know, whatever, Christian law. You didn't

mention Hindu law. You didn't mention Shinto law. You didn't mention Buddhist law. You didn't

mention Hebrew law. So all those, since those were not mentioned by name are those now on the table.

Right. So sometimes what they say is when you add an additional qualification, it causes a judge

to wonder is like, okay, since you specifically call this out, but you didn't call out all these

other things. Does that mean these other things now could potentially be set up? So that's the

reason why some people will bring up a legitimate legal argument for why, no, we should just reassert

that US law is the only law that applies rather than specifically calling out other forms of law

and saying, well, this one doesn't count. Does that make, I hope that makes sense. Again, I'm not

trying to give you a weak answer here. I'm trying to show that legally, this is, this is the, and it

is a good argument. It is a good argument. We should probably just reassert that no other law,

no other legal systems are permitted to compete with US legal systems. That would probably be a

cleaner way to do it to where now we don't enter in that other question. Nick said question,

kind of a follow up, even if they are not committing the crime of pushing Islam, just their vote

will enable it. No, it's it's a yeah, then then the question becomes is, how do you know how they

vote it, right? So in every single one of these things, like I totally understand the concern,

but the way to address the concern is don't allow for the mass importation of people

and diametrically opposed worldviews who ate your civilization. That's the answer. When somebody

is already here, now it's like, okay, well, I'm concerned that they're going to vote for people

that will try to overthrow our system and replace it with another one. Okay, how do you know who

they voted for? Right? Like if they come out and say who they voted for, okay, are we now going to

say, well, yeah, but I didn't vote for them for that. I voted for them because I like their,

you know, tax policy or I like their, you know, whatever policy. It just again, it becomes difficult

and that's where they come up with a thousand different ways to kind of invade the law.

And this is one of things we used to always tell people is there's a lot of things that sound

common sense until you try to write it out in legal language and then you realize that holy crap

you can drive a truck through this, right? Or this is going to end up creating a whole lot of

problems that we didn't anticipate. That's why the best way to solve a lot of this is don't allow

people who don't want your civilization and don't want to be a part of it to immigrate and naturalize

into it. All right, we've got another super chat here. Thank you very much. PA Grunt said Omar

should be deported for 10 billion in fraud from her district. I'm disappointed with Trump and

Bundy again, nothing on Walls, Frey, Omar, Ellison, etc. They had to know. Here's the deal,

PA Grunt. This is all I'm going to say. I'm frustrated by this as well. There's obviously a lot

of things going on in the world right now. And there's a lot of things going on domestically.

Now, none of that excuses the fact that this should be investigated. But I will say this,

if memory serves correctly, when this stuff really kind of blew up, I think within 72 hours,

the Justice Department and Casper tells FBI had people down there confiscating documents,

subpoenaing things, doing all this stuff. So the bottom line is we can all look at this and say,

this is fraudulent. And we can identify the fraud. But convicting individuals for fraud is different.

Now you've got it. Now you've got to lay out an entire trail of evidence. You've got to be able

to anticipate what is the defense attorney going to say. And what you don't want is to rush to court

with a case that isn't ready for prime time and screw it up. Like a perfect example of this,

the my biggest frustration with the Trump administration has been the Epstein files because it was

like, oh, there's all this horrendous stuff. And it's like, okay, cool, it's prosecuting people.

Oh, no, we're not going to. What do you mean you're not going to? And inevitably,

there's a lot of reasons why that potentially could be the case. But I think the only reason why

we're not seeing prosecutions thus far is that you have to actually legally establish who knew what,

when did they know? Yeah, again, what did you know and when did you know it? That's important

because if you had a lot of conversations going on, well, if nobody was actively,

if you didn't have a warrant to tap those conversations, well, you didn't capture any of that.

And you can believe it existed all day long. You can say the probability that when it knows

absurd, but what can you prove in court? And that generally takes time. And again, I'm willing to

give him time because I think they're motivated to do it. But that's, that's the issue. Alexa Rae,

thank you for the super chat. Thanks for standing on principle and values. Thank you, Alexa.

I don't know any other way to do it. Okay, let me see here. Did I get all the, oh,

we got one here? Joseph Feney on Facebook said, question, what about Omar's past? Wasn't her

father a big deal in the Somali army? A kernel, but that regime got taken out and they fled because

her father was now a deposed enemy because of the violence he took part in. So Joseph, we actually

discussed that. That was that was a big part of what we discussed here about an hour ago. If you

want to go back and take a look at that, we actually went through the whole history of her dad

being a kernel. He enlisted in the Somali army, I think around 1976, rose to the rank of kernel,

was in the Somali army all the way up until the Sayyid Bayer, Sayyid Bayer, I always scrub

these names. Sorry, regime came down. He was active. He was a senior ranking military. He was a

military officer in the senior ranker military officer at the time that a lot of atrocities were

taking place. And so the question is is there, there hasn't been two dates, efficient evidence to

connect them to any specific atrocities. But, and that might be, therefore, we might not have

enough to convict them of those atrocities, but the same token with him seeking, you know, refugee

or asylum in the United States, somebody, somebody in immigration should have said, wait a second,

aren't, aren't, weren't you a senior ranking officer for a regime that we despise and was

butchering people? Maybe, maybe this is not the place you should be seeking asylum to. Maybe you

should go look somewhere else, right? Or maybe if you're going to seek asylum here, you're,

you're going to, we're going to keep a close eye on you. And we're not going to give you natural

as they, we're not going to allow you to become a U.S. citizen. We'll let you stay here. And so

you find another place to lead, right? That would have been something they could have theoretically

done, but no, they just, they just let them right in. But yeah, no, it's a big issue. I, in fact,

I went so far to say that if we really wanted to stop this and it's tracks, the best way to do it

would have been just to tell him you, you don't get to seek refugee status in the United States,

because we can't be, we cannot be, we cannot be reasonably certainly. You did not participate

in atrocities. And, and having participated in war crimes is one of the primary reasons that people

either are not giving refugee status, not giving citizenship or denaturalize if you find out

after the fact. And if that would have happened, then she would have gotten naturalization.

Okay, let me see. Question from Trish, Dilbo and on Facebook, do you feel the Democrat party is

becoming a socialist party? I think it's been a socialist party for a long time. Now, actually,

let me, let me qualify that. I don't think most Democrats are socialist. If you actually look at

their economic policy, I think the best way to describe it would be they're more fascist.

And that, that always sounds counterintuitive, right? Because, oh, they're big and new and

deep and they hate fascism. No, they don't. They hate certain elements of fascism. So, they hate

the elements of fascism that they saw as being nationalistic or militaristic or expansionist.

Right? And, and in this, I'm also making a distinction between fascism and Nazism, because those

were two different things as well. There's a lot of similarities between the two, but they were

still different. If you ask most Democrats what they want, they don't want to be full on

socialist, because the socialist believes in the abolition of the private ownership of the means

of production. So, private citizens can't own like productive property, right? They can own

their t-shirt, but that's it. They don't own homes. They don't own capital equipment. They don't

own companies. They don't own trucking. They don't own any of that. That's a socialist, right? And

it's purest term. Fascists were people that believed that you could have private sector ownership,

but that private sector ownership have to be heavily regulated and controlled by the government.

So, you as the private citizen can still own the company, but with respect to your labor,

with respect to what you produce, with respect to quotas, with respect to prices, with respect to

what you can, you know, who you can compete with and how you compete with them. That's all going

to be heavily regulated and managed by the government. And that's how the Italian economy under

Mussolini operated. It's also largely how the Nazi economy under Hitler operated. So, if you look

at most Democrats, they're not saying, I want, I want to nationalize Amazon, some of them are,

right? Mondani is, right? AOC would probably be fine with it. Bernie would be fine with it.

Most of what they're saying is, no, you can keep your company provided that you operate it

along the lines that we as the government officials have decided is best for the people.

So, that's actually more in line with the fascist approach to economics than it is a socialist

approach to economics. Okay, let me see. Let me see. Come over here.

Yeah, let me see. Okay. All right. Do I get them all? All right. I'm going to take a couple more

questions here. And then we're going to go ahead and call it an evening. Vicki, thank you very

much. I appreciate it. All right. Let me see. Nate, did I miss any questions, brother? Oh,

yeah, here's one right here. Okay. From YouTube,

turn nugs for you. Well, thank you. What if there's a link between her and the fraud that's

taken place and then they're able to track that back to a terror organization? So, yes, if you were,

so, okay, good question. Typically speaking, if someone has been as a naturalized citizen and

they committee crime, they're not denaturalized unless the crime is fairly heinous or it was connected

to them somehow engaging in immigration fraud, either immigration fraud on their behalf or

assisting other people in immigration fraud. So if so typically speaking, if someone's a naturalized

citizen and they get associated with fraud, they would be convicted of that, right? If they're

sufficient evidence and due process of law, they'd be convicted of that and then they'd be fined

or imprisoned for that, but they wouldn't automatically be denaturalized. Now, if you have that

additional component to where she was she was connected to fraud and it was going back and it was

funding terrorist organizations because let's face it, a lot of this fraud money was actually going

back to Somalia and a lot of organizations in Somalia are engaging in what we would classify as

other terrorism or war crimes. The question then was you'd have to be able to establish that not only

was she committing fraud or not only was she somehow an integral part into how the fraud was taking

place, but that she had knowledge that the money was being used for terrorist activities. So you'd

actually have to prove two things. One that she was involved in the fraud and two that she actually

had some sort of understanding of what the money was being used for and then you could do both.

At that point, can you make a good denaturalization case? Yeah, I think you could, but a lot of that

is up to who the president is. Well, right now we got a president that I think would be willing to

make that argument. Okay, Michael Osman, how you doing, brother? Michael Osman's a great dude from

YouTube. If it came to denaturalizing Omar, what would it look like to denaturalize her and

remove her from office? Can you walk us through that process? So I did a little bit earlier where I

talked about what you would first need to do is you would actually have to convict her for something

that would naturally lend itself to denaturalization. Now, if you can convict her of a crime,

there's a couple of ways she could be removed from office. Certain crimes are effectively

automatic removals. Other crimes, if she has to do prison time or whatnot, Congress can remove her

from office. We saw that happen, or I think the guy's name from New York that happened to.

So, Congress can remove members of the body if they violate certain rules or commit certain crimes.

But then she would have to go through a denaturalization process. So that's a federal process

where they would eventually, what they would have to say, they would have to make the argument that

because she was convicted of these crimes and because these crimes on one side of the immigration

side, we could say she was convicted of a crime associated with committing immigration fraud.

The other one would be she was committed of a crime which has direct ties in which she knew

had direct ties to supporting terrorist organizations, especially if it's a terrorist organization

that has ever launched tax against the United States or as any part of its charter directed against

the United States. At that point, you could also probably engage in denaturalization proceedings.

And it's not like you wouldn't be stepping outside of a precedent because that's one of the things

too that from the legal side that they want to avoid. They don't want to create new precedents

if they're afraid that the new precedent could have implications or have unintended consequences

that they don't want. But if you, if you can convict her of immigration fraud and if you can

convict her of the sort of financial fraud that got tied back to terrorist organizations,

I would argue that you would have a very good argument at that point for denaturalization based off

of the hundreds of denaturalizations that have taken place over the last, you know, 20 years.

All righty. I missed one. Okay. Oh, so a super chat from Wolflord. Is that Wolflord Kanan?

Okay. How do you think we're going to handle Cuba? I don't know. I did a whole episode on this.

I did a whole episode on this and what I said was essentially because I don't personally believe

that you have a bunch of ideologues in Cuba that are just, you know, can't wait to die for communism

the same way that you do have people that are willing to die for, like say, Islam, for instance.

I think it creates a different dynamic in Cuba. I think the vast majority of the Cuban people

have been living in such a abject poverty for such a long time that I don't know that any of them

are picking up arms to, you know, proudly defend, you know, the Castro family.

So I think what you could, I think what you could see is actually something similar to what

you saw in Venezuela. So I'm going to give you what I think the best case scenario would be.

Best case scenario would be is that Trump says, look, I've choked up the whole island. You can't

get energy. There's no way your regime, you know, survives this. So here's the offer.

The offer is is that you've got a ton of money sending in offshore accounts and everywhere else.

I'll let you keep that money and exchange for keeping that money. You're going to help facilitate a

peaceful transition of power and then you're going to leave. You're going to go somewhere else,

but you can take your money with you, right? And here's what's going to happen the day that that new

transition government comes into power. All of a sudden, the oil comes back in, the money comes back

in. People, you know, reprey tree back to Cuba. They're able to buy. They're able to invest.

And then all of a sudden life gets exceptionally better for the people living in Cuba.

Relatively quickly, not to mention the fact that all of your military and police forces

continue to get paid because that's an important way to keep people from becoming insurgents.

Continue to pay them in their capacity to actually defend whoever the government is

and then they don't become rebel groups. Because again, I don't think there's a whole lot of

kernels in the Cuban military that are like, no, I will die for Karl Marx. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I get. So I think if we handle it that way,

we could theoretically handle it with very, very little US military involvement.

Maybe a little bit of some, but not like occupying the country and trying to run it.

That would be the ideal situation. The bad situation would be something where they really dig

in their heels and you potentially have a civil war raging in Cuba. And at some point,

the United States is blamed because we have essentially put in an energy embargo right now that

they can't survive. And we start to pile up, you know, civilian casualties or things like that.

Are people just dying from like a medicine or access to power? And the end result is,

is the United States feels obligated to go in there either with a lot of money or troops in order

to stabilize it. So best case scenario, when you go, she had a deal with the powers that be

peaceful transition of power, lights go on, Cubans happy, Americans happy, yay.

Bad thing is this, this degrades into civil war, the leaders end their digging their heels,

and it just becomes an absolute freaking nightmare. I don't think, I don't think the communist

hold out in Cuba no matter how this goes. It's just one way it could mean a lot more blood

and treasure for the United States and the other. Jim, the Jim plays from YouTube said,

in my opinion, public figures openly declaring anti-American sentiment falls under the definition

of aid and comfort. If you fail to utilize your fifth amendment rights and lose your freedom

or citizenship, so be it. Yeah, look, when you, when you say to claim anti-American sentiment,

the question becomes is what's your legal definition for anti-American sentiment?

Because here's what Ilhan Omar would say in court, oh no, I'm not anti-American. I love America.

I just think America should be better than what it was. What it was an anti-American

for civil rights leaders to say that we should live up to the Constitution was an anti-American

to claim that, you know, America should not have gone to war and Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran,

right? Is that anti-American? That's what she's going to say. Now, I would say that you and I both

know that I think she holds a lot of anti-American sentiments. The question is, how do you define

an anti-American sentiment in a legal term? Like, how do you prosecute her over that? And how do you

do so without running a foul of freedom of speech? Because Joe Biden would claim that anybody,

anybody that did anybody that said that the election was stolen is engaging in anti-American rhetoric.

And now you get into this battle of, okay, what are the legal terms that we're actually utilizing?

How do you prevent it from becoming a problem and the unintended consequences? So that's all I

would say. That's how it would say is we need to be careful about how we define these things

and criticizing a war is not automatically aid in comfort to the enemy.

Aid in comfort to the enemy is generally associated with you doing something of a physical

macho. So it's like, I'm shipping guns to my enemy or I'm giving them intelligence and

information to my enemy. Now, the thing with Ilhan Omar that you might be able to get it with

goes to the comment that somebody else said, which is, okay, if she's tied to this fraud and that

fraud was actively going to organizations or countries, engaging in terrorism to include

engaging in acts against the United States, now you have more of a direct tie and becomes a much

cleaner legal case. But when we just say that saying anything which our enemies could potentially

use against this will theoretically anybody that protested the Vietnam War could say, well,

you're giving aid in comfort to the communists. I don't think someone should necessarily be

prosecutor losing their citizenship over something like that, right? I believe in freedom of speech

and freedom of speech allows for people to say a variety of things, some good, some bad,

but it has to fit certain legal criteria to actually deprive someone of life, liberty, and property.

And that's a core fundamental of who we are as a country. Again, we could have saved ourselves

a lot of trouble if we would have just said, you know what, we're not going to let, we're not going

to let her colonel father in the country who is probably involved in war crimes. Michael bomber,

and this is going to be the last question guys, because we got a, we got to kind of shut it down

for the evening. Michael bomber said, if you had to distill what makes America different, not

necessarily better, but just distinct compared to the rest of the world, what stands out most to you

and what to you is the deeper meaning of someone choosing to become an American. Great question,

Michael. I think there's a couple of things. If you look at why America was settled in the first

place and then specifically look at why did we fight a revolution? When you look at the Declaration

of Independence, when you look at the various conversations and quotations among the founders when

they were actually organizing our government, there's a couple of things that you find. One,

it was predominantly Christian, right? So there's no question that Christianity had an oversized

influence on the culture which created our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

It's not disputable. When you look at the founders and how they talk to each other as they were

writing these things, as they were debating these things, you, you know, Montesquieu was quoted 8%

of the time, right? Like if you look at the total number of quotes, I can't remember what

professor did this, but he looked at all the quotes from the founding fathers as they were debating

Declaration of Independence and as they were debating the Constitution, Montesquieu was top at 8%,

Blackstone, I think was next at like 7%, John Locke, which was especially around the time of the

revolution was about 3%, and the Bible is about 34%. And that same professor said that if you actually

included the things that were obviously biblical quotes but weren't put in quotations,

biblical references would rise to about 40 to 50% of the quotes from the founders as they were

discussing things of relevance to our country. So there's no question that Christian morality and

a Christian world view was was integral to establishing America. Then when you look at that with

respect to political philosophy, you're going to find a couple of things. One, you're going to find a

lot of references to things like politius, right? You're going to use this whole concept of

anti-cyclosis, which we did a whole episode on, but basically what it was was trying to set up a

perfect system to combat against, you know, oligarchy or tyranny or mob rule, right? And how do we

set those things up? And that informed a lot of why we have a house, a senate, a presidency,

a judiciary, like why do we have the three branches of government? Why are we federalist instead of

a national government? Like all of those things factored in, you get a lot of that in

polybias, you get a lot of that with with Rome and Greece. Then there was also elements of

classical liberalism. That's where you get Montesquieu, that's where you get John Locke, that's where

you get the Scottish Enlightenment, that's where you get Scottish common sense. So all of those things

factored in and when you look at it, what do you find, right? Well, you have John Adams saying that

our constitution is written for a more religious people and is totally inserted in the government

of any other. So there's a Christian component, a theological component. And then there was this

idea of individual liberty combined with personal responsibility. And so when you look at individual

liberty combined with personal responsibility, it was the idea that human beings should be able to

pursue happiness. However, they don't get to pursue it at the expense of other people's liberties

or rights. And that the primary role of government is to protect God-given rights. The primary

role of government is not to issue out rights. It's to recognize those rights which exist as part

of God's greater order and then to set up a government apparatus in order to support that and

to facilitate the general welfare, but only within the specific and enumerated powers of the federal

government. So if you look at what makes America unique, Christian theology, along with traditional

concepts of trying to prevent the concentration of power into the hands of a despotic element,

whether that despotic element be a single tyrant and oligarchy or the mob,

federalism, which is the idea, which is informed by the orders of the lesser magistrate, which is to

say that you want those governments which govern in the most intimate ways to be closest to the people

that are your local government and your state government and your federal. And then I would say

there's a combination of rugged individualism combined with a strong sense of family and community.

So these are along with things like private property rights, market economics,

entrepreneurship. These things all mix together form what I would describe as American culture.

Now, have there been people that believe in some elements of that and not others that have flourished

and done well in American and contributed? Absolutely. But when we look at a unifying American culture,

I would say that the attributes and the aspects that I just mentioned are for me what helps define

it and make it what it is. Hope that answers your question, Michael. We should probably do just an

entire episode on that at some point and actually lay out the argument for that. We did have some

conversations like that. We had a series that we did on YouTube called What Should The Right Want

and we talked to a lot of various people talking about our founding, talking about when our

reformer founded. We talked to a lot of people who disagree with one another on some of those

finer points and it was really interesting series of conversations. Once again, ladies and gentlemen,

thank you very much for being here. Look, I don't think we made the case today that Ilhan Omar

committed immigration fraud. I think we made the case that there is sufficient evidence to investigate

whether or not Ilhan Omar committed immigration fraud. If she did in the way that the evidence

suggests she might have, then I think we can make a strong case for why she should not only not

be in Congress, but probably shouldn't be in the country. I don't take denaturalization

flippantly. I don't think if someone's a naturalized citizen just because they commit a crime that

they should automatically be denaturalized. But when you have a combination of factors that all

line up to point to somebody that was led into this country through the goodness of our hearts to

give them refuge, has now turned into a person that wants to systematically and fundamentally change

our country while at the same time constantly denigrating it. When you add all that up, combine

with the fact that there is, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to launch a thorough investigation

on whether or not she committed immigration fraud or whether or not she was committed or connected

to fraud, which very well could have gone to supporting America's enemies. Those are things

worthy of analyzing, worthy of investigating, if true, worthy of convicting, and if convicted,

worthy of denaturalization. Once again, thank you very much for joining us. Give us a like and

follow if you'd like plus. One more thing. You can pre-order. That's right. I actually wrote a book.

I actually wrote a book. It's coming out April 14th. You can pre-order it now. You can get the

book that John Lovell described as the worst coloring book ever. But basically what I do is I

kind of outline several things in this that I've just learned over 46 years of life, 22 years of

no. 46 years of life, 26 years of marriage, 22 years of fatherhood, a couple of combat tours,

10 years in the legislature. Again, it's not a book where I'm preaching at you. I'm just kind of

talking more about things that I've learned. A lot of times the hard way. If you think that would

be beneficial to you, the man book. You can pre-order everywhere now. Once again, thank you guys very

much. I had a blast. We went 40 minutes later than I thought, but I love the back and forth

and the question and answer. If you guys like it as well, please like, share, subscribe,

really appreciate it. Once again, thank you very much. We'll see you next episode.