Loading...
Loading...

There is no shortage of crazy claims on the internet about…well, everything. But one claim that gets less crazy the more you look into it is the one about Ilhan Omar potentially engaging in polygamy, immigration fraud, and…well…marrying her brother. The question is…why don’t we actually know for sure, and if it is true, what can or should be done about it?
SPONSOR: Lear Capital
The best way to invest in gold and silver is with Lear Capital. Get your FREE Gold and Silver investor guides from Lear Capital. And, receive FREE bonus metals with a qualified purchase.
Call them today at 800-707-4575 or go to: https://www.Nick4Lear.com
-----
GET YOUR MERCH HERE: https://shop.nickjfreitas.com/
BECOME A MEMBER OF THE IC: https://NickJFreitas.com
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nickjfreitas/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NickFreitasVA
Twitter: https://twitter.com/NickJFreitas
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Nickjfreitas
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nickfreitas3.0
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.
