Transcription
Hi guys, I just came back from DC after interviewing Congresswoman Luna about the paid protesting that we've exposed along with the illegal immigration fraud and the rise of Sharia law in the West. Congresswoman Luna sits on the oversight committee that is investigating the funding behind these protests. So without further ado, here is my conversation with Congresswoman Luna. Welcome back to the Nate Friedman show. Congresswoman Luna, it really means a lot. Thank you for sitting down with me.
It's an honor. Um, can you tell me so I've been reporting for like the last year on paid protesting. I've exposed a lot of protesters who have been paid close to $80,000 a year to protest. Um, I'm sure you know about this well, but I want to know your point of view sitting on the oversight committee. What can be done about this?
>> Yeah. So, we started going into all of this as soon as President Trump got elected. We randomly started seeing these protests for ICE. But it was interesting because you would see the protesters with these brand new flags. They'd be holding it up, right? Perfectly crisp. You could tell someone was giving them out because they all had them. And what we know from previous events, I know like gearing up into the last election cycle, you know, they would run ads on Craigslist for these people to show up, pay them by the hour, etc. And then also, this even goes back into BLM where you had protesters that in my opinion were paid and then you had, you know, the pallets of bricks being dropped off. I mean, this is probably been going on since, you know, really things, especially online, started going more viral in regards to some of these demonstrations.
Um, but I actually with Chairman Comr and the rest of the oversight committee sent a um a request to the Department of Treasury to freeze the assets of an individual by the name of Neville Singham because we had tried to serve him with um a request to come in to testify uh to Congress. He refused receipt of that um the notification service and then ultimately we also I believe recently got a um a subpoena approval to actually send him a subpoena to actually come testify to Congress. So what can be done on oversight? We have to ensure that these funding networks, specifically if they are being influenced by countries like China, which in this case, at least with Mr. Singham, um, we know for a fact that there is a foreign funding tie to this. That's not something that's allowed, if especially if you're funding terrorist networks.
>> Right. So there you said a terrorism network. So what my audience and I are really trying to figure out is what is the pathway to accountability? So whether it be through FAR or RICO. So I've looked into Singham closely. You know, he's given at least $20 million to protesters through the People's Forum. They pay them by being educators, but they're full-time on the street protesting. Well, there's a there's a lot with Singham too, that's really disturbing because it doesn't just stop there. I mean, he literally has been responsible for kind of being the the the funding, the main funding arm for some of these groups that are going and training in Cuba, then coming back to the United States. You know, they're using certain pressure point issues here, like for example, Israel versus Palestine or ICE versus no ICE or pro-war against war currently with what we're seeing on the strikes. But we know for a fact that it's being operated and funded by one of our biggest adversaries, which is China. And so, you know, you talk about FAR and actually Neville Singham is guiltable uh guilty of multiple FAR violations. Um, but I think right now from what we're being told, if FAR, um, if the FAR office is not technically up and running, then we can't hit him with a FAR violation. So then the other other angle would be, you know, accountability and that if he's not going to respond to Congress, he's going to be held in contempt of Congress and there is criminal action that can be pursued there that the DOJ can do or that the House of Representatives can do. But it is a problem and if we don't stop these foreign funding ties, I mean, a lot of the civil unrest in this country as well as, you know, the potential of terrorist links, which I believe exist and I think that there's plenty of valid evidence for that. Um, this is a big problem.
>> When you say that the FAR office is not up and running, what does that exactly mean?
>> Yeah. So, I actually inquired because I was like, why are we not going after many of these people with FAR violations if they are guilty of basically influencing and lobbying on behalf of a foreign government? They're not registered agents. You know, this is something that we can easily hit them with. And I, to be honest with you, I I can't provide you any insight as to why that office would not be full functioning right now. I think that this is very easy to lay up, but I also think that there's this aspect and perspective in Washington that multiple people could probably be hit with FAR violations. And so maybe it's just the swamp protecting its own. Uh, but either which way, I mean, you have a foreign registered, you know, agent, uh, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, right? So they're supposed to, if they're taking money, if they're influencing policy, if they're working on behalf of another country, whether it's China or any other country, um, they should be registered and they're not. So, I think that this is the dirty part of politics that a lot of people are unaware of. And I think that this also goes into social media influencers. I think that this is a huge thing that no one ever anticipated would be a problem. But you can even look at policies coming out right now in regards to the administration's foreign policy perspective. And there are people that you can see are literally lo and it happens all all across the board, but lobbying on behalf using their social media to influence um public opinion on behalf of a certain country.
Got it. Okay. So, we have a billionaire Roy Neville Singham who, um, you know, he's, I would call it, escaped to China almost. He's refusing to testify to Congress, right? So, I just want to perfectly understand how does that work that he can just refuse? Can he just stay there? Does he not have to come back? Like, what are the mechanics of this?
>> Yeah. So, he's essentially refusing to come back to the United States so that we can't serve him. Um, but, you know, if there's, and and there's other mechanisms in place that I can't discuss because I'm sure with your coverage of this individual, I am almost positive they are tracking everything and trying to ensure that um they avoid liability. And so there are certain things I can't say, but overall, he has um been very, very careful about when he comes to the states, if he does at all. Um, making sure not to tip anyone off that he's here so that we can't serve him, refusing receipt of our subpoena or our request for him to come in and testify, etc.
>> So, there is continued action toward holding him accountable.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> I can't go into it further, but I promise you.
>> Understand. Great. Um, so, there are different billionaires that are investing in protesting. Um, one of them being Singham, the other being Soros that I've looked at closely.
>> In your opinion, what are the biggest differences you've seen between those two guys?
>> Yeah, I actually explained this on a segment a few weeks back. You know, they both hate America. So that's, I guess, the only thing that they have in common. Um, Soros is a globalist. Neville Singham is a communist. He's, you know, he basically has, you know, professed his profound love for Mao. Um, he does not like what this country stands for. Neither does Soros. And so they both will equally fund different organizations um to essentially fracture, especially with young people, and to program them. Although Singham seems to be overtly working on behalf of the Communist Chinese Party to push Marxism. Um, Soros, on the other hand, you know, he's an interesting cat in himself, but he's bad news and he actually is, from what I gather, banned in a few countries.
>> Yes. So Soros in particular, he likes to put his money through several different other groups into um whether it be PSL or whatnot, but through like the Alliance for Global Justice Fund, Progress Unity Fund, Tide Center, Tides Foundation, but it sort of sort of starts at Soros, goes to Open Society, and then branches out to everything else. Is there perhaps a way to potentially avoid this mechanism going forward? It seems like it's just a game that's being played. You can fund, if you're an American citizen, you can fund whatever nonprofits you want. Um, I think the question is, are these nonprofits in violation of any laws? Then you can revoke their nonprofit status. The next question would be, are the networks that you're funding, are they ending up in the hands of terrorism or known terrorist organizations or groups? The minute that happens, you are then funding a terrorist organization and there's criminal action for that.
>> And so in regard to terrorism, I definitely proved terrorists sympathizing. So a lot of them were out protesting even while Israelis and American citizens were being killed on October 7th. They were they went out the next day. So is there something around that legally or is it purely just the funding of terrorism?
>> There's nothing around ideological that falls under free speech. No, I you can protest as long as you're doing it peacefully, you are free and you are protected to protest whatever you want, right? But the minute that the networks or the minute that the money goes or comes into the hands of something or someone that is designated as a domestic um a known terrorist organization or ties into domestic terrorism, I think that that's when you're ultimately no longer just using free speech. What's been interesting is in regards to whether it's this issue, whether it's Russia versus Ukraine, um, whether it's supporting or against the administration's strike um on Iran right now, what they are doing is they're taking these pressure point issues and what people don't realize is they're being inundated at the same time that these protests, these organized protests are happening. Um, they're being inundated with bot farms. So the bot farms are sending and spinning a certain narrative. Um, at the same time, they're being hit with these social media influencers that are also getting paid by foreign countries um pushing the same narrative. And so there's this all-out propaganda war happening with people that aren't even aware that it exists. They're not even capable of seeing it happening all at once. We see it because we can, we know the policies. And on the bot farms specifically, they use certain keywords and then you'll see the accounts, you know, might have like a thousand people newly created. Um, tend to not have any identity on the account. And what they were also doing is they were using a lot of accounts that were, you know, pretending to be conservative or Republican accounts to attack positions within the Republican party or conservative base. Now, we know that that that they weren't even here. Um, so to answer your question, there is something that can be done. Yes, some of these organizations from what I'm hearing um without going too much into the detail because there's going to be punitive action, were getting in in the hands of terrorism and so they're essentially funding terrorist networks.
>> Okay. Wow. What about arrest? So I just want to again, I'm asking all these clarifying questions so that people can really understand, including myself. Um, these folks are often getting arrested. So, David Chung, for example, he's getting paid $75,000 a year. Um, Lion Foulhan also getting paid close to $80,000 a year. They've both been arrested. Um, Monalo de Santos, the leader of the People's Swarm, has been arrested multiple times, not including all the other people affiliated with People's Swarm who's been arrested. Taxpayers have to pay an exorbitant amount for these folks to get considered.
>> And sometimes they sue.
>> And then they're brought in with these nonprofit attorneys that are representing them so that they get money from either the city or wherever they're suing.
>> So what are, is there a way to do something about this from a lawmaker's point of view where you can't just go out and consistently get arrested, be let out the next day, um, and scream for the downfall of America? It seems like it's not great.
>> Well, we can't, we can't prohibit free speech, right?
>> That I understand. Um, but the arrest part about consistently getting arrested and being let out, you know,
>> Well, that that this goes into a separate issue of the policies of some of these cities, the policies of some of these states, specifically with some of these protesters. For example, we can use the ICE riots. Um, when they started getting violent, the law enforcement was told to stand down. Don't, you know, don't do anything. A lot of these are sanctuary cities. If you do have people that are illegal. And then what they'll do is they have blue prosecutors, blue judges, blue DAs that won't come down with like if you were to do some of the stuff that they were doing in, you know, more conservative states, you'd seek full, you know, full persecution from the law. What we're finding is that the organizations are in bed with the local officials, local governments, and then they're willing to settle and then they basically do these big payouts. The organization that represented them then gets the payout in part or might split it with them. So they're basically just greasing the wheel. So if we're going to fix this issue, you fix it by cutting off the head of the snake because I don't think that we'll be able to ever mitigate that issue. I think if you go after the funding streams and you go after the nonprofit status of the organization, that's how you deal with it.
>> Got it. You mentioned Cuba earlier. I want to understand if there is potential pathway to accountability this way in which Monal Santos, leader of the People's Forum, has met with the Cuban president multiple times. In fact, many of the people at the People's Forum have been to Cuba multiple times.
>> Yep.
>> They do training. Yeah. A lot of them were saying they do training for the liberation of Palestine, even though they don't care and they don't see that the money itself is coming from China. Um, you know, the accountability mechanisms are, are they trying to do something that would directly target an elected official? And are they trying to overthrow the federal government? Um, are they working with known terrorists or terrorist organizations? Are they engaging in espionage and intelligence gathering operations on behalf of another government? These are all criminal acts that are not protected under free speech. Um, and so, you know, again, going back to how do you fix this issue? If we cannot cut off the funding streams, because granted, these people, if they weren't getting paid to do this, if they weren't having their travel paid for, they wouldn't be over there. Correct.
>> Um, if they weren't, you know, promised that if you go to jail, we'll get you out, they wouldn't be doing it.
>> Right. Yeah. A big distinction that I want to make is that it's not as if all the protesters are paid. It's that the organizers are paid and that all the signs are printed by the organizers and they wouldn't be holding anything. Perfectly crisp flags are given out. You know, um, David, my social media and comms director, he was like, you know, this is like the Temu riots. And so we like dubbed it the Temu riots of, you know, early 2024. And it is true because they were all funded by China. But I mean, you can literally see the structure of these organized protests and how it goes. It went from BLM to, you know, Ukraine flags. Now we went to Mexican flags, now it's going to be Iranian flags, right? And it's like the the oppressive regime of Iran. We can talk about some of the stuff happening right now. You see people that actually are supporting what's happening with, you know, with basically protecting American citizens that were literally facing imminent threat as a result of the regime of Iran. And then you have again now these organized protesters that are trying to say that, you know, they support Sharia law, which is like so crazy. And we can get into like a whole separate conversation, but going back to kind of the structure of these organizations. Um, what concerns me is again going back into you have these organized protests, you have the bot farms, you have the paid social media influencers, people being up here in Washington, you see um how much people are willing to do for money. Um, whether it's politicians in regards to their policy, if they can raise money from certain organizations or people. And then you see this also happen with social media influencers, how much money they're willing to take from a foreign government. I don't care what the foreign government is. I don't care if it's, you know, our adversaries. I don't care if it's our allies. If you're taking money from a foreign government to influence public opinion, you should be held accountable. Same with protests. Same with, you know, these organizations and nonprofits. There should be a level of disclosure with that because it is influencing our policy here and it does ultimately result in are we going to get involved in foreign conflict.
>> Okay. And so to wrap up the topic of paid protesting, I want to ask a final question about accountability, almost as if you have any advice for me. So I've exposed that they're paid. I've exposed all these channels and and I've followed the money. Now I'd really like to see accountability like my audience. What advice do you have? Is it to go through FAR? Is it to go through RICO? What is the best pathway you you you believe in?
>> RICO.
>> RICO?
>> RICO and money ties. The money ties have been very helpful in figuring out who's who, who's getting paid, who's organizing, kind of the top generals of these organizations, if you will. Um, FAR is also equally important, but I think the FAR angle in itself is not as strong because of what I outlined earlier. But I think the best advice to you is figuring out the financial ties because there's a lot that you can do legally with that. And then obviously, you know, for us, like I worked very, very closely with a woman by the name of Jennica. She runs the page Data Republican on X. Brilliant.
>> Yes.
>> And she actually helped uncover a lot of the Temu writing stuff, the um Neville Singham stuff, even Neville Singham going into Code Pink, which Code Pink has not been up on the hill. But I mean, this is all sponsored by the CCP. And you have people that are then, you know, screaming at each other on the House floor, not realizing that a lot of their talking points, a lot of the the civil unrest of this country right now is because of the CCP. Um, so what I would say is continue looking through that and then, you know, we can, you can bring it to my office, you can bring it to Jim Jordan. He's the chairman of House Judiciary, but there's there's angles and avenues for sure.
When she said that, it reminded me of why I started the Freeman Files dossier on every paid protester that I've exposed so that there's a central place where you can get all the info on these guys being paid to chant for the downfall of our country. Right now, you can get David Chung's file at natefreemanshow.com/freemanfiles. He's being paid $75,000 a year to protest and Lyan Foolyhan's file will be coming out next week. The woman I exposed for being paid close to $80,000 to protest. This isn't grassroots and the best way to support our efforts and stay informed on everything regarding these protests is to scan the QR code or go to natefreemanshow.com/freemanfiles. And now, so another subject matter that I've covered is illegal immigration. Specifically, under the Biden administration, I spoke to hundreds of illegal immigrants living in four-star hotels. Um, and it was truly something that you don't believe it till you see it. Um,
>> And one thing I want to ask about is how do we avoid that from happening ever again in this country?
>> You have to engage in politics at every level, local level, um, state level and federal level. And I say that because a lot of the cities did the sanctuary policies that contributed to that. A lot of the states became sanctuary states that contributed to that. And then they got the federal government dollars that then were influenced by policy. And then we had a president that was literally encouraging people to come here illegally and using your tax dollars to pay for it. You know, a lot of people don't understand that money doesn't grow on trees. And I know it might not be a big deal, especially for young people right now, but the fact is is Social Security is looking at insolvency. A lot of these government nets that are for taxpayers that have worked very hard, done everything by the book. Um, basically as a result of those types of policies and basically us bleeding cash to support people that have never paid into the system. By the way, the metrics are, it's not just like, you know, 5 million or 10 million people here illegally. It's close to 20 million people here illegally, maybe maybe more. These people are never going to fully be able to be contributing members of society because of the fact that they have a broken the law by even coming in here. And b, they will always be in a sense living in the shadows, which makes them targets for organized crime, etc. So how is that truly the American dream? Not to mention their illegal acts have just essentially broken the system. So how do you fix it from ever happening again? Is you have to engage in politics. You can't just stick your head in the sand.
And what do you mean engage in politics specifically? Like, what can Congress do um to safeguard our border so that right now we we have a wall and we have a secure border, but we could have a president in the future that doesn't want a secure border.
>> Well, the biggest thing that we can do right now to prevent this from like actually really being a bad thing, um, it's already a bad thing, but like really, really tipping the scales and us losing our country over it is voter ID and proof of citizenship. So that is in the Save America Act. You know, that I threatened to shut down the government over this. I met with the president. He's championing it. Right now, we have three or four members in the Senate that are refusing to embrace the talking filibuster so that we can get it over the finish line. So, I think that it's going to have to be placed on something called FISA, which is a must-pass reauthorization and a um a surveillance bill, essentially. If we don't do that, the next Democrat president will likely give mass amnesty to and citizenship to all of those illegals here. And I don't know that we'll ever be able to have a fair election after that because you see that a majority of Americans, Democrats, Republicans, and independents want voter ID. And yet the establishment Democrat party up here is trying to kill it. And they're trying to kill it because they understand that their policies aren't working for Americans. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, Hispanic, Asian. Doesn't matter if you're Democrat, Republican, or independent. People want voter ID and they're still working against it. They don't want proof of citizenship. They want these illegals to replace their voters.
>> I've seen statistics where the overwhelming majority of people on both sides want voter ID and but Democrat lawmakers aren't in favor of it.
>> Correct.
>> So, what have you heard um whether it be closed door meetings or just in the halls? What is the argument from Democrats truly um to not
>> There's there's no good argument. They know that their base wants it. There is no good argument. What I have heard from multiple Democrats in the media is, well, if they don't come here, who's going to pick the crops? There have been talks about, you know, from people, they'll say publicly, oh, it's Jim Crow era laws. What are you talking about? You call, you're calling black Americans that want voter ID supportive of Jim Crow era laws? That's crazy. Um, so there is no valid concern. It's about power for these people. I can go back into, you know, the organized protest. Remember, tail end of, you know, the the 2016 era and time frame. It was about BLM. They're targeting the black voting base. And then starting in, you know, 2016 to 2018, the black American demographic started being outpaced by the Hispanic-American demographic for the largest voting minority in the country, being Hispanic Americans, specifically of Mexican descent. That's why when you saw all the news coming up, that's why they weren't showing you pictures of the military-age males here from China or from parts of the Middle East or from Africa. They are specifically showing you women and children that were Mexican. And the fact is is that that is not the only illegal demographic here. In fact, a lot of them are military-age males. So, we have a big, we have a big problem. And you know why they don't support it? It's about power and control. It's about propaganda. And they want that illegal voting block. Period. And they're not even hiding it anymore. I think the faces of Schumer basically said, "We want, you know, we want amnesty. We want citizenship for these illegals."
>> So, one of the most egregious things I saw reporting on the illegal immigration crisis was was FEMA. So using FEMA to house illegal immigrants.
>> That happened during, actually, my district got hit with two hurricanes and I voted against the FEMA funding package because specifically there was no left or right limit in what they were going to use that money for. And then it came out that they're their housing illegals and we were not able to, like a lot of our people were being impacted and there was no money for them because of the illegals.
>> Right. So it seems that governors and what have you can just declare an emergency and then get the funds. Is there something that Congress can do in which an emergency can be categorized more specifically?
>> Yeah, so we can actually write it specifically. So in the last FEMA funding package that went through, there was no again guardrails on that. So they were able to say this is FEMA dollars, but there was never language that specified cannot be used for illegals, etc. And that's why you saw that happen. But yes, absolutely. But that would require there being a Republican-controlled House and Senate and an administration that wouldn't veto it. And so that's where you have the opportunity to do that now. And actually, you are seeing in the one big beautiful bill, there have been good policies put in place to prevent money from going to illegals, but we are still fighting that from within the in um internal organizations, etc. So we're still working on it, but yes, to your point, you actually can specify where the money goes.
>> About waste, fraud, and abuse. So one of the things I saw was in Massachusetts, there was Elliot Community Services, was housing migrants um and they were giving each each migrant meal was $42.
>> Which is a lot.
>> Yeah.
>> Bring him to McDonald's.
>> Right. Right. Um, so we also saw um empty rooms that were being charged the taxpayers. So John Featherson, who was who blew the whistle on this, outlined it all. And um, you know, the governor is still running for re-election. Everything seems to be just, you know, same old. And I think people want to see accountability. How do we see accountability for this egregious waste?
>> We can't give them the federal dollars. But again, that's appropriators. That's an internal thing here. And I'm a very conservative um ideologically motivated member in that sense. So I will not vote for legisl, it could be the greatest piece of legislation, but if I see there's poison pills in it, and that's what we call them. They poison pill the legislation, I'm not going to vote for it because it's wrong and they could easily adjust it. They don't need to do that. But they're doing it because they are greasing the wheels here in Washington. So that's when I said, like, how do you fix it? Well, you have to have a member that's not going to vote for it. And that starts with the voters of those districts that are sending their members up here, right? And so that's when I say you have to get involved in local politics. You have to get involved because so many people, you know, we're in this day and age where like they just scroll through their phones and information is like 30 seconds, 15 seconds, 10 seconds, nothing more. There's no engaged dialogue like there is right now. And we're losing our country as a result of it. And then they see something on the internet once and they think that it's real instead of doing the research, right? Like there's there's been like this lack of critical thinking skills, I think, because of how people have just really lost focus and have been been so programmed. And what I would say is that if we are going to have a strong country moving forward, if we want to have the true access to the American dream, if we want to be able to buy a home and afford health insurance and have a family and have all of the things that would fulfill us as an individual and an American citizen, we have to make sure that we are monitoring these issues. We can't just basically be, you know, a charity, a charity, uh, for the rest of the world. That's not going to work. We will go bankrupt as a country as a result of that. And so sometimes it's not a comfortable conversation to have, but it needs to be pointed out.
>> Okay. So it seems that sanctuary cities are at the crux of this. That without this policy.
>> One of the recent reports I've done, which isn't out yet, actually, is Mdani and AOC made an announcement in Spanish encouraging illegal immigrants to enroll in free childcare, and they did it in Spanish because they don't speak English. It was very interesting. Um, I don't know if it's tied to sanctuary policy, but again, what can be done to undo? I know the president has spoken about sanctuary cities, but going forward, can we undo sanctuary cities?
>> We can't, so we can't. So there's then the argument of states' rights over federal federal um policy, and I will always lean on the side of the states because that's how our constitution and our country was set up. We saw this as a great case during COVID-19, right? Florida said, federal government's laying out these these policies, take a hike, and Florida was able as a result of that to really protect its business and citizens. Then you have the flip side of this where you have states like New York that are very pro-illegal immigration, very blue, embracing sanctuary city policies. So you can't tell the states, unless they're violating constitutional rights, what they can and can't do, right? Um, and that's the separation of powers. But what you can do is say, if you are in New York City or if you are a representative for one of the bureaus that is housing illegals, then you cannot receive money from the federal government, and we can actually prevent them from being able to bring that money back to those areas if we know that it's going to be um spent with fraud or given out to people that haven't paid into the system. So that would be the appropriations process.
>> Yeah. So it seems like your mentality, which is fair, is that, you know, people vote for these policies in their own states. You know, one thing that's kind of unfathomable is, you know, I live in New York City. I've lived there for the last five years. I saw the crisis. I saw it all in front of me. Spent over $12 billion on the migrant crisis, and we we voted for those same policies again.
>> So.
>> But you can't, but how do you fix it? Is you cannot continue to bail these places out, and that would be a federal dollar policy, right? So like, don't continue giving money. And that's why I think I get so frustrated with my own party sometimes because it's like spinning the wheels. We are so focused on getting elected that we're not actually implementing the policy. That's why I was literally threatening to shut down the federal government. And and I had a conversation with President Trump, and President Trump is with me on this issue. Save America is the number one in the country. But as you're seeing, the Democrats are still trying to shut down DHS. DHS has been funded. ICE operations have been funded till 2028, over, right? To like, they're just expecting that their voters are too stupid to realize that. And that's so crazy. Like, I could never imagine going and asking for the vote of someone if I'm actually, you know, thinking that they're not smart and that they're not going to actually be able to see what I'm doing. They're lying to their saying that and fund and uh shutting down DHS partially that they're somehow impacting ICE operations or they're implying it. That's simply not the case. What are they impacting? Counterterrorism. What are they impacting? DHS. What are they impacting? Um, would be Coast Guard. So like all of these things that protect the home front from terrorist acts, and as you're seeing right now with everything in Iran, we need that funded because we do have a serious threat on our hands.
>> You mentioned working with President Trump a few times. Can you share a time where you guys worked closely on an issue and and accomplished something together and what it was like?
>> Um, most recently, I guess, I was asked by the president about some topics for the State of the Union, and I suggested that both were really important, which he agreed, were voter ID and the State of America Act, and then banning insider trading. And, um, he ended up really hitting those out of the park. And so I would say that I have a very good relationship with the president in the sense that yes, like if I have a problem, I call him and he'll help and he answers my calls, but also too, I think on like a sounding board perspective, he does ask my opinion on certain things and he takes what I say into account. And I have seen him on some things, for example, the State of the Union speech, certain topics, he took my advice on it and knocked it out of the park. So that was the most recent case. Thank you. Um,
>> Save America would be another one, but he's now, and that hasn't like fully passed yet. So, when you ask me next time, then I'll say, we'll save America.
>> Um, so I recently took a trip to the UK. Um, I don't know if you've been there recently, but you wouldn't recognize it as the UK. Uh, and one of the biggest concerns I got from my audience is that they don't want to see that happen to this country. Um, are there steps that can be done here in America to avoid what has happened to to England?
>> Yeah. Uh, what happened to the UK, I actually just had a German outlet in here, it's like PBS, and it's happened in Germany too, where they had mass unchecked migration coming in from countries that will not ever assimilate with the West ideologically speaking. Military-age males um coming in with, you know, their families um tapping into the system, becoming basically cases of the state for welfare and then living off taxpayers and just bleeding the system, not contributing to society in a positive manner. I'm not saying that all immigrants do that. That's not the case. We have plenty of cases of people that come here merit-based, assimilate, embrace our culture, go through the process the correct way, and are great American citizens. But in the UK and in parts of the EU, that was not the case. And you are seeing that play out in real time. I saw some footage out of um out of France recently, and it literally looked like a refugee camp.
>> That is not Europe. And so if you don't have strong leaders that are willing to stand up and say, "We will not tolerate this." If you are in a position where you're not contributing to society and you can go back to your house, guess what? You're getting deported. Then that's their own fault. That is their own damn fault. And I'm so sick and tired of men specifically in these countries saying, "Oh, well, it's xenophobic and racist." That's like the blanket label. They've done it to so many of us here. We know that it's not xenophobic and racist to want border security. But if you go over there and you say it, and meanwhile they have literally rape gangs rolling around their countries. I mean, that's insane. You have women that can't go out without being raped or beat up by these migrants that are not doing anything other than terrorizing the residents of those countries. So I have no sympathy for that because I think that that's a self-inflicted. It's like shooting yourself in the foot and then saying, "Oh, I don't know what happened." So how do you avoid that from happening here? You have to have strong immigration laws. You have to be willing to call it out what it is. And the fact is is that we cannot tolerate in any way, shape, or form any form of Sharia law in this country. Period.
>> I know that there was a council that was recently uh started about Sharia law. Are you in that council? What do you think about it?
>> Okay.
>> It's a it's a caucus. It's the anti-Sharia caucus.
>> Um, very different from you know, outright saying that you are anti-Muslim. Two totally different things. There have been normal Muslim countries that have great relationships with the United States that are not trying to blow us up. Okay, we could look at any one of the countries that are currently members of the Abraham Accords. However, Sharia law is not good, and that's what we are seeing happen in places like Texas. That is what we are seeing happen in places like Dearborn, Michigan. We do not want that. It is not um it does not assimilate with our culture. Not to mention it is in some of the policies and in some of the ideological perspectives of that ideology. It is against what we are as Americans in regards to women specifically and their constitutional rights. And so I think that this is going to be a conversation that won't go away anytime soon. I am by no means like what you would consider the liberal definition of like a crazy feminist, but holy cow, like have you looked into the stories of these honor killings? Have you looked into what happens to some of these women in Iran around the world if they do not do what is expected of them via Sharia law, and that's scary.
>> Yes. So what's very scary to me is when I speak to many Muslims in the UK and in Italy, they tell me that all Muslims should follow Sharia. And this distinction between Islam and radical Islam, I think needs to be made. So if a if Muslims tell me, and I can say not every single one because I've spoken to many, but many have told me that all Muslims should follow Sharia, is that radical in your opinion? And I think
>> Well, I've had, so I've actually had conversations with several people I know that are Muslim that I would consider friends that have said what's happening with Sharia law is like actually crazy and like that's not what we want. So I don't know if that's just like a distinction here. If you're like American-born, then like you go through our school and education system, you're more assimilated, you don't have that perspective versus if you're from a country that does have Sharia law, then you immigrate and then might hold that perspective to be true. But there is a big distinction between someone that is supporting Sharia law versus someone that doesn't want it. And what I will tell you is it is very disturbing that in Texas they found Sharia, Sharia courts. That is crazy to me.
>> Yeah. I know you represent Florida, but can you shed any light of what is going on in Texas? What have you seen? Like, I, it's unfathomable.
>> Texas is interesting because there's been a few things. Um, there have been, and it seems like with the unvetted and unchecked immigration that happened under Biden um and then happened under other Democrat presidencies, you have these groups that kind of form and then kind of take over the local population and they don't assimilate. And I think that that's the problem when you have people that are coming here without having to go through that assimilation process. Like when you file, when you go through your citizenship process here, right? You have to take our um our classes, you have to take, you know, like learn to speak English, you have to take a test where you actually know American history. So there's this aspect of people engaging and embracing the American culture and our values and our ideas. Um, I will use a perspective in that I have a very, very dear friend of mine that came from Turkey, and she's Muslim, but she's American, and she understands that you cannot have Sharia law in the United States, right? But then you have people that are, and it's crazy because I think when we're going back to our initial conversation and that these outside groups that are funded by places like China that are then pushing even American-born non-Sharia law raised women specifically to try to embrace this culture. I feel like it, it's an internal attempt using our own free speech against us to try to create divide in this country, fracture it, and then you have a country like China kind of shoot up to being the number one superpower. So, I think it's multifaceted. I've worked with plenty of people of every single religious background and ideology, and I will work with those people as long as they are not forcing their ideologies and perspectives um on and violating the constitutional rights of other individuals. And I think that we are kind of at a point now where we see what's happened in Europe. We've seen what's happened in other parts of the world, and we see all the indicators, and we just have to make sure that it doesn't happen here. And so we are doing what we can now to kind of put those firewalls in effect, if you will.
>> And specifically about Texas, I saw that and I, I'm going um very soon, but that they're building about two mosques a month and that there's over 300. Um, whether it makes somebody feel unsafe or they're worried about lack of assimilation. Is there something that can be done from a congressional point of view of limiting the amount of mosques? I don't, I don't know if there's any precedent for something like this, but yeah.
>> Well, no, because you have free speech and you have freedom of religion in this country. And part of the reason why we were founded the way that we were is because you had the Church of England that was trying to force something and our colonists and our people said, "We're not, we're not dealing with that." The pilgrims were like, "See, we're out." Um, so no, you can't do anything in that sense to outright ban the building of a mosque. But again, going back to if you have these things like Sharia courts that are violating the constitutional rights of women specifically or other individuals, that's not right. That's not legal. And that's not co, it's not something that is going to ever work with our western culture and ideological perspective here in the states. So to answer your question, how do we prevent that from happening? You have to, people you have to have people at the local levels, specifically in places like Texas, that are going to stand firm in understanding that that's not acceptable. And then you also have to have people at the federal level that will never implement those laws through legislation. But I don't think that we're there at that point. I don't think that we would ever have a president that would declare Sharia law over the United States of America. Um, but I do think that these are valid concerns and I just know that it was good how it was addressed in the state of Texas. Um, you have state, uh, the attorney generals of many states that have had certain cases, whether it's this, whether, you know, it's issues of racism, I mean, it's been addressed across the country in in various ways, but, you know, it's definitely disturbing. But the reason why Europe happened the way that it did, I think was a large result as
of unchecked unvetted immigration. And as of right now, we have an immigration moratorium in place from certain countries, specifically that are known to have, um, radical cases of terrorism and, and radical, radical cases of Islam. Um, what I would say is the more radicalized, for example, Sharia law, um, terrorist sect of Islam.
Awesome. So, my, my final question to you is just a look behind the curtain. I know that a lot of people pass the Capitol building. A lot of people wonder, um, what a congresswoman does, what a congressman does. And I, I, um, I just want to ask you what you're planning on doing, whether it be today or tomorrow, whatever day is less confidential, I guess. Um, curious.
So, so this week, I happened to plan a few weeks back, you know, I was seeing what was happening at the World Economic Forum and how so many of these policies and these weird goals and objectives for many members of government from around the world with the World Economic Forum is just so dystopian and so creepy and so out of touch. And these ideas come from these like secret meetings and boardrooms and, you know, conference rooms where no real people are engaged in the discussion, the conversation. And if you don't align with those perspectives of being very pro-globalist, you're basically not invited to the event. And so I put together kind of a counter to that. It's called the Alliance of Sovereign Nations. We have over 87 members of government from around the world to include, I believe, a few presidents in attendance, um, that are focusing on three very fundamental things to have a strong country. That is energy independence, free speech, and strong immigration policies. And that's going to be taking place. And so I actually organized this event. Um, I actually worked with Turning Point Action. So that I'm the honorary chair, but I worked with Turning Point Action to kind of head up this event and it's going to be the first of its kind. But again, you know, what do I do in my average day? In addition to doing media, I do my hearings. I take constituents' meetings. And then on my free time, I'm trying to save the world. So that's what I do. That's what I'm doing this week.
Next week, um, you know, I've also been known to though engage in peace talks. I'm actually very vocal in what President Trump is doing to try to end the war in Ukraine and Russia. I've been attacked as a result of that, but we should always be leading with peace as a first perspective, um, in policy. And, and a lot of people, especially right now with what's happening with Iran, don't realize that this administration did try to lead with that. We were trying to negotiate on ending the nuclear enrichment program. And I can't get in too much into the intelligence sharing on this, but, you know, there was an imminent threat that existed. And I think a lot of right now what we're seeing, especially on this topic, is there's a lot of bot accounts going on. A lot of people are uneasy and rightfully so because the American people are so tired and have been so rear the federal government with endless wars. And I've been one of those huge advocates against them, right? Like I've never voted for any funding for Ukraine. I wanted to not really send our tax dollars to other countries, specifically like Taiwan, um, in regards to building up their arsenals because I understand the issues that we have here, but I also understand the delicate balance of foreign policy and really how do we prevent large-scale catastrophic events in the future? And unfortunately, um, we're in the position that we're in right now because our hand was forced. But I do believe that it will long-term be the best thing for not just our country, um, but the future generations of this country to avoid a nuclear exchange in the future.
What was it like? You mentioned Iran, so I need to ask. What was it like in the building when it, when it all went down?
We were, it happened, it happened, it started happening on Saturday morning. And so at around, I think it was like 2:00 AM. And so I was actually just wrapping up my depositions of Bill and Hillary Clinton. And so I was actually, I woke up at around 3:30, got into my Uber to head to the airport at JFK. And I opened up my X and I saw that we were, we were hitting Iran. And at that point, um, I immediately kind of like started messaging some people that I know that are at the White House and was kind of getting a handle on everything. And then I guess it can come out now, but I spoke with the White House extensively. I spoke with, I spoke with the Secretary of State on Saturday and I have been following this very closely because I don't want a long drawn-out conflict like in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I lost friends when I was in the military. I lost friends in those wars. And I mean, my goodness, my husband was shot in Afghanistan. And so I don't want that to happen again. And so we are, and I do feel based on what I'm, I've my conversations, etc., that that is not the perspective of this, that it will be in and out. And, um, I just know that unfortunately, peace has a heavy burden and that we were in a position to where we knew that imminent strikes were going to happen even if we did not engage in the conflict. And at that point, when you have someone that's a crazy person saying that they want to basically see the, the, you know, see the downfall of the United States of America with, with ballistic missiles, we could not allow them to have any of that. And so they didn't, they didn't want to negotiate in, in good faith. And it wasn't just that, but there were actual missiles that were directly pointed at our bases all along the southern belt of Iran. And now you're seeing, as President Trump said, that, you know, the leadership for the most part that had that ideological perspective has been neutralized. But, um, we'll see what happens. I mean, you see other Gulf countries, other Muslim countries that are engaging in this fight because they also understand that they were being hit. So again, going back into this, you know, Iran governed dominated by radical Islam and Sharia law. Other countries like Qatar, like the UAE, yes, Muslim countries. However, are they trying to, you know, directly kill Americans in the United States? You know, Qatar just intercepted incoming missiles that were aimed at our bases. And so, you know, this is a delicate balance and foreign policy and we are seeing that the Abraham Accord countries are standing by this administration. And I think that that's the perspective of peace through strength. But, um, I hope and I pray for everyone involved right now because I think leadership has a very, um, important decision to make in the next few weeks. And so we'll be praying for everyone involved, to include people in Iran right now that are braving the storm.
Thank you so much, Congressman Luna. I really appreciate your time. It's an honor.
We appreciate it.